(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Seismic hazard characterization of 69 nuclear plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains"

DOC, 

Y 3.N88; 

25/5250/v,8 



NUREG/CR-5250 
UCID-21517 
Vol. 8 



Seismic Hazard Characterization 
of 69 Nuclear Plant Sites 
East of the Rocky Mountains 



Supplementary Seismic Hazard Results for 
Sites with Multiple Soil Conditions 



Prepared by D.L. Bernreuter, J.B. Savy, R.W. Mensing, J.C. Chen 



Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 



Prepared for 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 



NOTICE 



This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their 
employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability of re- 
sponsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, 
product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would 
not infringe privately owned rights. 

UNIVERSITY O F 

ILLINOIS LIBRARY 

AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
BOOKSTACKS 



NOTICE 
Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications 
Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources: 

1. The NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W, 
Washington, DC 20555 

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, 
Washington, DC 20013-7082 

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 

Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, 
it is not intended to be exhaustive. 

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu- 
ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection 
and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; 
Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and 
licensee documents and correspondence. 

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales 
Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and 
NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of 
Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. 

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series 
reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic 
Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, 
such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and 
state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries. 

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference 
proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited. 

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 
request to the Division of Information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process 
are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available 
there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be 
purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the 
American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. 



NUREG/CR-5250 

UCID-21517 

Vol.8 



Seismic Hazard Characterization 
of 69 Nuclear Plant Sites 
East of the Rocky Mountains 



Supplementary Seismic Hazard Results for 
Sites with Multiple Soil Conditions 



Manuscript Completed: November 1988 
Date Published: January 1989 

Prepared by 

D.L. Bernreuter, J.B. Savy, R.W. Mensing, J.C. Chen 



Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
7000 East Avenue 
Livermore, CA 94550 



Prepared for 

Division of Engineering and System Technology 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555 

NRC FIN A0448 



mmm 






^i'/^^^^j ^'^ 



Abstract 

The EUS Seismic Hazard Characterization Project (SHC) is the outgrowth of an 
earlier study performed as part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 
(NRC) Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). The objectives of the SHC were: 
(1) to develop a seismic hazard characterization methodology for the region 
east of the Rocky Mountains (EUS), and (2) the application of the methodology 
to 69 site locations, some of them with several local soil conditions. The 
method developed uses expert opinions to obtain the input to the analyses. An 
important aspect of the elicitation of the expert opinion process was the 
holding of two feedback meetings with all the experts in order to finalize the 
methodology and the input data bases. The hazard estimates are reported in 
terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 5% damping velocity response 
spectra (PSV). 

A total of eight volumes make up this report which contains a thorough 
description of the methodology, the expert opinion's elicitation process, the 
input data base as well as a discussion, comparison and summary volume 
(Volume VI). 

Consistent with previous analyses, this study finds that there are large 
uncertainties associated with the estimates of seismic hazard in the EUS, and 
it identifies the ground motion modeling as the prime contributor to those 
uncertainties. 

The data bases and software are made available to the NRC and to public uses 
through the National Energy Software Center (Argonne, Illinois). 



-m- 



Table of Contents 



PAGE 



Abstract 

Table of Contents 

List of Tables and Figures 

Foreword 

List of Abbreviations and Symbols 

Executive Summary: Volume VIII 

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 

SECTION 2 RESULTS AND SITE SPECIFIC DISCUSSION 

2.0 General Introduction 

2.1 Nine Mile Point 

2.2 Susquehanna 

2.3 Three Mile Island 

2.4 Browns Ferry 

2.5 Catawba 

2.6 Farley 

2.7 North Anna 

2.8 Oconee 

2.9 Summer 

2.10 Arkansas 

2.11 Callaway 

2.12 Duane Arnold 

SECTION 3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

3.1 Regional and Site-to-Site Variation 

3.2 Sensitivity to G-Expert 5's Model 

3.3 Conclusions 

APPENDIX A: References 

APPENDIX B: Maps of Seismic Zonation for Each of the 11 S-Experts 



111 
v 

vi 
xi 

XV 

xix 

1 

5 

5 

8 

21 

34 

47 

60 

73 

86 

99 

112 

125 

138 

151 

164 
164 
169 
170 

A-1 

B-1 



-v- 



mm^ 



List of Tables and Figures 

The same format for the tables and figures are used for every site. The 
following is an exhaustive list of all tables and figures presented in this 
volume. 

The symbol "SN" in the following refers to "Site Number" and the corresponding 
page numbers are given in the table on page ix. 



(1) Table 2.SN.1 



Most Important Zones per S-Expert for 
SN S-2 



(1) Figure 2.SN.1 



(2) Figure 2.SN.2 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC 
applicable for the structures founded 
on shallow soil aggregated over all 
S and G-Experts for the SN site. 

BEHCs applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil per S-Expert 
combined over all G-Experts for the SN 
site. Plot symbols given in 
Table 2.0. 



(3) Figure 2.SN.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil 
based on all S and G-Experts' input 
for the SN site. 



(4) Figure 2.SN.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the 
secondary soil category given in 
Table 1.1 and the rock case for the 
SN site. 



(5) Figure 2.SN.5 



(6) Figure 2.SN.6 



BEUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for return 
periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 
10000 years aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the SN site. 

The 1000 year return period BEUHS 
applicable for the structures founded 
on shallow soil per S-Expert 
aggregated over all G-Experts for the 
SN site. Plot symbols are given in 
Table 2.0 



-VI- 



(8) Figure 2.SN.8 



(9) Figure 2.SN.9 



(7) Figure 2.SN.7 500 year return period CPUHS 

applicable for the structures founded 
on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 
85th percentiles aggregated over all 
S and G-Experts for the SN site. 

1000 year return period CPUHS 
applicable for the structures founded 
on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile aggregated over all 
S and G-Experts for the SN site. 

10000 year return period CPUHS 
applicable for the structures founded 
on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile aggregated over all 
S and G-Experts for the SN site. 

Comparison of the 50th percentile 
CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for return 
periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 
10000 years for the SN site. 

Figure 2.SN.11 Comparison between the 10000 year 
return period 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentile for the shallow soil case 
and the rock case for the SN site. 



(10) Figure 2.SN.10 



(11) 



-vn- 



List of Additional Tables and Figures 



PAGE 



Table 1.1 

Table 2.0 
Table 3.1.1 

Table 3.2.1 



Figure 1.1 



Figure 3.1.1 



List of 
Founded 
Soil 



Sites with Some Structures 
on Rock and Some on Shallow 



Plot Symbol Key Used for Individual 
S-Experts on Figs. 2.SN.2 and 2.SN.6 

Ratios of PGA Values between Shallow 
and Rock Conditions for Fixed Values 
of the Hazard 

Ratio (Soil /Rock) of the Probability 
of Exceeding 0.3g for the Case When 
All 5 G-Experts are Used and the Case 
When Only G-Experts 1-4 are Used at 
the Browns Ferry and Susquehanna Sites 

Map showing the location of the sites 
with structures founded on both rock 
and shallow soil. Map symbols are 
given in Table 1.1. 

Plot of the ratio of the probability 
of exceeding 0.3g PGA for the median 
(line), 85th percentile (plot symbol, 
"0") and the arithmetic mean (plot 
symbol, "X") for the (shallow soil 
case) /(rock case). Site ID number is 
the same as the section number listed 
in Table 1.1. 



7 

168 

171 



172 



-vm- 



3 






UJ 

Ik 



C0 



X3 



0) 



o> 



a> o) 

r— JQ 
-Q E 
«0 3 






(/) 00 



oo 

CVJ 



to 

CM 



CVJ 

z 

CM 



00 

z 

OO 
CM 



CM 



00 
CM 



z 

OO 
CM 



OO 

CM 



z 

OO 
CM 



CM 

z 

OO 

CM 



OO 

CM 



00 

CM 



o 


ro 


VO 


<y\ 


CM 


in 


CO 


. — 1 


<d- 


r-~. 


o 


CO 


CM 


ro 


^ 


in 


r^ 


CO 


o^ 


T— 1 
.—1 


CM 

.—1 


ro 


in 


VO 


cr> 


CM 


in 


CO 


f—t 


^ 


r^ 


o 


ro 


VO 


cy> 


CM 


t— t 


ro 


^ 


in 


r^ 


00 


CT> 


•—1 

.— 1 


CM 

1— t 


ro 

r-H 


1 — 1 


VO 
< — 1 


on 


I— 1 


^ 


r-. 


o 


ro 


VO 


CJ^ 


CM 


in 


00 


1— 1 


.— 1 


ro 


^ 


in 


r^ 


00 


<y\ 


o 

1—1 


Csj 
1 — 1 


ro 
.—1 




VO 
1— t 


r- 


O 


ro 


VO 


cy> 


cvj 


in 


00 


.— t 


«;1- 


r>~ 


o 


«— 1 


ro 


^ 


in 


VO 


00 


cr> 


o 

1 — 1 


CM 

T— 1 


ro 
.—1 


«5r 

r—t 


VO 

t— ( 


VO 


a^ 


CM 


in 


00 


.— 1 


"d- 


r^ 


o 


ro 


VO 


CTi 


I— 1 


CM 


'd- 


in 


VO 


00 


a> 


o 
.—1 


CM 
.—1 


ro 
«— 1 




in 

«— 1 


LT) 


00 


I— 1 


'd- 


r^ 


o 


ro 


VO 


cy> 


CM 


in 


00 


1—1 


CM 


«:3- 


in 


VO 


00 


<T> 


o 

I— 1 


<— 1 

r— 1 


ro 
1— 1 




in 

.—1 


«:d- 


r-^ 


O 


ro 


VO 


<T> 


CM 


in 


00 


«— 1 


^ 


r~ 


I— 1 


CM 


*3- 


in 


VO 


r^ 


cr> 


o 
.—1 


1— 1 
r—* 


ro 
t— 1 




in 



ro 


VO 


cn 


CM 


in 


00 


1— t 


<d- 


r>. 


o 


ro 


VO 


t-t 


CVJ 


ro 


in 


VO 


r-~ 


<Ti 


o 


1—1 
1— < 


ro 

1—1 


1—1 


in 
1—1 


CM 


in 


00 


1—1 


<3- 


r^ 


O 


ro 


VO 


CT> 


CM 


in 


«— 1 


CM 


ro 


in 


VO 


r>. 


CT> 


O 

1—1 


1—1 
1—1 


CM 
1—1 


1— < 


in 

1—1 


t—t 


'd- 


r>. 


o 


ro 


VO 


CT> 


CM 


in 


00 


1—1 


«d- 


7—1 


CM 


ro 


in 


VO 


1^ 


00 


O 
1—1 


1—1 
1—1 


CM 
1—1 


1— t 


in 
1—1 


O 


ro 


VO 


<Tv 


CM 


in 


00 


1—1 


^ 


r>. 


o 


ro 


.—1 


CM 


ro 


«!l- 


VO 


r-. 


00 


o 

1— < 


1—1 
1— t 


CM 

1—1 


1—1 


in 

r-H 


CT> 


CM 


in 


00 


1—1 


^ 


r- 


o 


ro 


VO 


cr> 


CM 




CM 


ro 

c 


^ 


VO 


r^ 


00 


o 

1— t 


1—1 

1—1 


CM 
1—1 


ro 

1—1 


in 
1—1 


-t-> 




<0 




















C 




r— 




















• r- 




10 




















o 




t— • 


>> 
















■a 


Q. 


<o 

c 


(U 








«o 










o 


0) 


c 


r— 


0) 






c 










c 




«o 


•1— 


u. 






c 






to 


>-> 


t- 


•I— 


sz 


t: 




(0 




<c 






fO 


<o 


<C 


:^ 


(D 




V) 


X3 


>~, 




(U 


s- 


W1 


^ 






3 


(U 


c: 


■5 


<u 


x: 


<u 


0) 


c 


fO 


a> 


<u 


cr 


O) 


^ 


<a 


1 — 


+-> 


£= 


g 


<a 


1 — 


c 


c 


«/) 


s- 


o 


+J 


s- 


S- 


o 


t 


j^ 


r— 


(O 




3 


x: 


s- 


(0 


rtJ 


o 


o 


3 


i- 


<o 


3 


z 
• 


OO 

• 


1— 

• 


CO 

• 


• 


U- 


z 


o 


OO 


o 


o 

1—1 


• 

CM 


1—1 


CM 


ro 


«d- 


in 


VO 


r>~ 


00 


cy> 


1—4 


1—4 


1—4 



-IX- 



The impetus for thi 
Regulatory Commissi 
Safety Margins Rese 
methods needed to h 
compute the seismic 
which we refer to a 
use in probabilisti 
result of the NRC's 
regarding the USGS' 
respect to the 1886 
issued on November 



Foreword 

s study came from two unr 
on (NRC) . One stimulus a 
arch Programs" (SSMRP). 
ave available data and an 

hazard at any site locat 
s the Eastern United Stat 
c risk assessment (PRA). 

discussions with the U.S 
s proposed clarification 

Charleston earthquake. 
18, 1982, in a letter to 



elated needs 
rose from the 
The SSMRP' s t 
alysis softwa 
ed east of th 
es (EUS) in a 
The second s 

Geological 
of their past 
The USGS clar 
the NRC, whic 



of the Nuclear 

NRC funded "Seismic 
ask of simplified 
re necessary to 
e Rocky Mountains 

form suitable for 
timulus was the 
Survey (USGS) 

position with 
ification was finally 
h states that: 



"Because the geologic and tectonic features of the Charleston region are 
similar to those in other regions of the eastern seaboard, we conclude 
that although there is no recent or historical evidence that other regions 
have experienced strong earthquakes, the historical record is not, of 
itself, sufficient ground for ruling out the occurrence in these other 
regions of strong seismic ground motions similar to those experienced near 
Charleston in 1886. Although the probability of strong ground motion due 
to an earthquake in any given year at a particular location in the eastern 
seaboard may be very low, deterministic and probabilistic evaluations of 
the seismic hazard should be made for individual sites in the eastern 
seaboard to establish the seismic engineering parameters for critical 
facilities." 

Anticipation of this letter led the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to 
jointly fund a project with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The 
results were presented in Bernreuter et. al., (1985), and the objectives were: 

1. to develop a seismic hazard characterization methodology for the 
entire region of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. 

2. to apply the methodology to selected sites to assist the NRC staff in 
their assessment of the implications in the clarification of the USGS 
position on the Charleston earthquake, and the implications of the 
occurrence of the recent earthquakes such as that which occurred in 
New Brunswick, Canada, in 1982. 

The methodology used in that 1985 study evolved from two earlier studies that 
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) performed for the NRC. One 
study, Bernreuter and Minichino (1983), was part of the NRC's Systematic 
Evaluation Program (SEP) and is simply referred hereafter to as the SEP 
study. The other study was part of the SSMRP. 

At the time (1980-1985), an improved hazard analysis methodology and EUS 
seismicity and ground motion data set were required for several reasons: 



-XI- 



,.>;■.. 



Although the entire EUS was considered at the time of the SEP study, 
attention was focused on the areas around the SEP sites—mainly in the 
Central United States (CUS) and New England. The zonation of other 
areas was not performed with the same level of detail. 

The peer review process, both by our Peer Review Panel and other 
reviewers, identified some areas of possible improvements in the SEP 
methodology. 



Since the SEP zonations were provided by our EUS Seismicity Panel in 
early 1979, a number of important studies had been completed and 
several significant EUS earthquakes had occurred which could impact the 
Panel members' understanding of the seismotectonics of the EUS. 

Our understanding of the EUS ground motion had improved since the time 
the SEP study was performed. 

By the time our methodology was firmed up, the expert opinions collected and 
the calculations performed {i.e. by 1985), the Electric Power Research 
Institute (EPRI) had embarked on a parallel study. 



help in 
LLNL and the 
the minimum 
the EUS, (2) 
accounted for 



We performed a comparative study, Bernreuter et. al . , (1987), to 
understanding the reasons for differences in results between the 
EPRI studies. The three main differences were found to be: (1) 
magnitude value of the earthquakes contributing to the hazard in 
the ground motion attenuation models, and (3) the fact that LLNL 
local site characteristics and EPRI did not. Several years passed between the 
1985 study and the application of the methodology to all the sites in the 
EUS In recognition of the fact that during that time a considerable amount 
of research in seismotectonics and in the field of strong ground motion 
prediction, in particular with the development of the so called random 
vibration or stochastic approach, NRC decided to follow our recommendations 
and have a final round of feedback with all our experts prior to finalizing 
the input to the analysis. 

In addition, we critically reviewed our methodology which lead to minor 
improvements and we also provided an extensive account of documentation on 
ways the experts interpreted our questionnaires and how they developed their 
answers. Some of the improvements were necessitated by the recognition of th 
fact that the results of our study will be used, together with results from 
other studies such as the EPRI study or the USGS study, to evaluate the 
relative hazard between the different plant sites in the EUS. 

This report includes eight volumes: 

Volume I provides an overview of the methodology we developed for this 
project. It also documents the final makeup of both our Seismicity and 
Ground Motion Panels, and documents the final input from the members of 
both panels used in the analysis. Comparisons are made between the new 
results and previous results. 



the 



-xii- 



Volumes II to V provide the results for all the active nuclear power plant 
sites of the EUS divided into four batches of approximately equal size and 
of sites roughly located in the four main geographical regions of the EUS 
(NE,1 SE, NC and SC). A regional discussion is given in each of Vols. II 
to V. 

Volume VI emphasizes important sensitivity studies, in particular the 
sensitivity of the results to correction for local site conditions and 
G-Expert 5's ground motion model. It also contains a summary of the 
results and provides comparisons between the sites within a common region 
and for sites between regions. 

Volume VII contains unaltered copies of the ten questionnaires used from 
the beginning of the 1985 study to develop the complete input for this 
analysis. 

After the bulk of the work was completed and draft reports for Vols. I-VII 
were written, additional funding became available. 

Volume VIII contains the hazard result for the 12 sites which were 
primarily rock sites but which also had some structures founded on shallow 
soil. These results supplement the results given in Vols. II to V where 
only the primary soil condition at the site was used. 



-Xlll- 



■•»'A 



1-5 '.1 



''.//'. 



List of Abbreviations and Symbols 

A Symbol for Seismicity Expert 10 in the figures displaying the results 
for the S-Experts 

ALEAS Computer code to compute the BE Hazard and the CP Hazard for each 
seismicity expert 

AM Arithmetic mean 

AMHC Arithmetic mean hazard curve 

B Symbol for Seismicity Expert 11 in the figures displaying the results 
for the S-Experts 

BE Best estimate 

BEHC Best estimate hazard curve 

BEUHS Best estimate uniform hazard spectrum 

BEM Best estimate map 

C Symbol for Seismicity Expert 12 in the figures displaying the results 
for the S-Experts 

COMAP Computer code to generate the set of all alternative maps and the 
discrete probability density of maps 

COMB Computer code to combine BE hazard and CP hazard over all seismicity 
experts 

CP Constant percentile 

CPHC Constant percentile hazard curve 

CPUHS Constant percentile uniform hazard spectrum 

CUS Central United States, roughly the area bounded in the west by the 
Rocky Mountains and on the east by the Appalachian Mountains, 
excluding both mountain systems themselves 

CZ Complementary zone 

D Symbol for Seismicity Expert 13 in the figures displaying the results 
for the S-Experts 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 



-XV- 






EUS 



G-Expert 

GM 
HC 

h 
LB 

LLNL 

M 

Ml 
% 

mb(Lg) 

Ms 
MMI 

Mo 

NC 

NE 

NRC 

PGA 

PGV 



Used to denote the general geographical region east of the Rocky 
Mountains, including the specific region of the Central United States 
(CUS) 

Measure of acceleration: Ig = 9.81m/s/s = acceleration of gravity 

One of the five experts elicited to select the ground motion models 
used in the analysis 

Ground motion 

Hazard curve 

Epicentral intensity of an earthquake relative to the MMI scale 

Site intensity of an earthquake relative to the MMI scale 

Lower bound 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

Used generically for any of the many magnitude scales but generally 
mtj, %{lg), or Ml- 

Local magnitude (Richter magnitude scale) 

True body wave magnitude scale, assumed to be equivalent to mj^lLg) 
(see Chung and Bernreuter, 1981) 

Nuttli's magnitude scale for the Central United States based on the 
Lg surface waves 

Surface wave magnitude 

Modified Mercalli Intensity 

Lower magnitude of integration. Earthquakes with magnitude lower 
than Mq are not considered to be contributing to the seismic hazard 

North Central; Region 3 

North East; Region 1 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Peak ground acceleration 

Peak ground velocity 



-XVI- 



PRO Computer code to compute the probability distribution of epicentral 
distances to the site 

PSRV Pseudo relative velocity spectrum. Also see definition of spectra 
below 

Q Seismic quality factor, which is inversely proportional to the 
inelastic damping factor. 

Ql Questionnaire 1 - Zonation (I) 

Q2 Questionnaire 2 - Seismicity (I) 

Q3 Questionnaire 3 - Regional Self Weights (I) 

Q4 Questionnaire 4 - Ground Motion Models (I) 

Q5 Questionnaire 5 - Feedback on seismicity and zonation (II) 

Q6 Questionnaire 6 - Feedback on ground motion models (11) 

Q7 Questionnaire 7 - Feedback on zonation (III) 

Q8 Questionnaire 8 - Seismicity input documentation 

Q9 Questionnaire 9 - Feedback on seismicity (III) 

QIO Questionnaire 10 - Feedback on ground motion models (III) 

R Distance metric, generally either the epicentral distance from a 

recording site to the earthquake or the closest distance between the 
recording site and the ruptured fault for a particular earthquake. 

Region 1 (NE): North East of the United States, includes New England and 
Eastern Canada 

Region 2 (SE): South East United States 

Region 3 (NC): North Central United States, includes the Northern Central 
portions of the United States and Central Canada 

Region 4 (SC): Central United States, the Southern Central portions of the 
United States including Texas and Louisiana 



RP 
RV 



Return period in years. 

Random vibration. Abbreviation used for a class of ground motion 
models also called stochastic models. 



-xvn- 



S Site factor used in the regression analysis for G-Expert 5's GM 
model: S = for deep soil, S = 1 for rock sites 

SC South Central; Region 4 

SE South East; Region 2 

S-Expert One of the eleven experts who provide the zonations and seismicity 
models used in the analysis 

SEP Systematic Evaluation Program 

SHC Seismic Hazard Characterization 

SHCUS Seismic Hazard Characterization of the United States 

SN Site Number 

Spectra Specifically in this report: attenuation models for spectral 
ordinates were for 5% damping for the pseudo-relative velocity 
spectra in PSRV at five frequencies (25, 10, 5, 2.5, 1 Hz). 

SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake 

SSI Soil-structure-interaction 

SSMRP Seismic Safety Margins Research Program 

UB Upper bound 

UHS Uniform hazard spectrum (or spectra) 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WUS The regions in the Western United States where we have strong ground 
motion data recorded and analyzed 



-xvm- 



s^":. 



Executive Summary: Volume VIII 

After the completion of the analysis reported in Vols. II-V and summarized in 
Vol. VI, some additional funds became available. Because of the importance of 
the correction for local site conditions, it was determined that it would be 
most beneficial to use these funds to perform an analysis for the appropriate 
shallow soil category at the twelve sites which had most structures founded on 
rock but also had a few founded on shallow soil. These sites and their 
secondary soil categories are listed in Table 1.1. 

In Sections 2.1 to 2.12 we provide the results for the secondary soil category 
for the sites listed in Table 1.1. Using a uniform format for each site 
(i.e., each section) we first present Table 2.SN.1 (where "SN" stands for Site 
Number) providing the following information: 

Secondary soil category used in the analysis to correct for local 
site conditions. 

For each S-Expert the Table 2.SN.1 provides a listing of the four 
seismic zones which contribute most to the hazard in terms of the 
peak ground acceleration (PGA) at both lower PGA (0.125g) and at 
higher PGA (0.6g) values. 

The contribution of various zones given in the table for each site is limited 
only to the contribution to the best estimate hazard curves (BEHCs). 



The table is foil 
Table 1.1). The 
hazard curves. F 
shallow soil comp 
2.SN.10 give vari 
return periods, 
been made at five 
lines have been u 
Figures 2.SN.11 g 
CPUHS between the 



owed by Figs 
first three 
igure 2.SN.4 
ared to the 
ous 5 percen 
It should be 

periods, 0. 
sed to conne 
ive a compar 

shallow soi 



. 2.SN.1 to 2.SN.11 (SN = Si 
figures. Figs. 2.SN.1 - 2.SN 

gives a comparison between 
rock case. The next six fig 
t damped relative velocity s 

noted that the spectral cal 
04s, 0.1s, 0.2s, 0.4s, and 1 
ct these points to get the s 
ison between the 15th, 50th 
1 case and the rock case. 



te Number given in 

3 give various PGA 
the CPHCs for the 
ures. Figs. 2.SN.5 - 
pectra for various 
culations have only 
.Os and straight 
hapes plotted, 
and 85th percentile 



In Section 3 we examine the regional variation of the effects of the site 
correction on the computed hazard. We also examine the sensitivity of the 
results to the choice of ground motion models, in particular, relative to the 
low attenuation model selected by G-Expert 5. 

Our results show several interesting somewhat unexpected results: 

There can be a wide region-to-region and even site-to-site variation 
in how the site correction impacts the computed hazard at a site. We 
found that the computed median hazard applicable for the structures 
founded in shallow soil range over a factor of 2 to over 5 higher 
than the median hazard applicable for structures founded on rock at 
the same site. Given this wide variation and the complex set of 



-XIX- 



factors causing the variation, it is not possible to say without 
doubt that our results include the worst case. 

It is clear from the results presented that it is not possible to 
approximately correct for site conditions by first computing the 
hazard at a site by considering it as a rock site and then introduce 
approximate correction factors, e.g., such as could be extracted from 
the sensitivity results given in Section 2.2 of Vol. VI. 

Considerable caution must be exercised in trying to use the results 
given in this volume to extrapolate to other sites. There is a very 
complex interaction between the zonation, seismicity parameters and 
the correction for site type which has a significant impact on the 
computed hazard at any given site. 

The correction for site category is sensitive to the ground motion 
models used. If G-Expert 5's model is not included then it appears 
that there is a wider regional and site-to-site variation than when 
G-Expert 5's model is included. 



-XX- 



1. INTRODUCTION 

In Vol. I of this report, we provided a discussion of our methodology, 
including the approach used to account for local soil conditions. In Vol. I 
we also provided the input provided by both our S- and G-Experts. In 
Vols. II-V we provided the results of our seismic hazard analysis for all 
active nuclear power plant sites in the EUS. 

At most of the sites analyzed in Vols. II-V the critical structures were all 
founded on the same category of soil. However, at the twelve sites listed in 
Table 1.1, some critical structures were founded on shallow soil although most 
critical structures were founded on rock. Table 1.1 also indicates the 
location in this report of the results for the primary analysis, it gives the 
type of soil category of that primary analysis, and in addition, it provides a 
comparison of the results between the results at the shallow soil and its 
primary (rock) soil condition. This comparison is given in terms of both the 
ratio of probability of exceedance of 0.3g between shallow and rock, and the 
average ratio of the PGA value for three fixed probabilities of exceedance 
(10~^, 10"^ and 10"^). A complete discussion of these results is given in 
Section 3.1. In Fig. 1.1 we show the location of these sites. The results in 
Vols. II-V, for these twelve sites, were applicable only for the structures 
founded on rock. In Section 2 of Vol. VI we presented a sensitivity study 
showing the importance of correcting for local soil conditions and we noted 
that generic corrections could not be used in general because there was some 
regional site-to-site variation. 

In Section 2 of this report we present the results for each of the sites for 
the secondary soil conditions listed in Table 1.1. Also included for each 
site is a comparison between the hazard applicable for the structures founded 
in rock and those founded on shallow soil. In Section 3 we make comparisons 
between the sites and show that the correction can vary considerably between 
sites. 



-1- 



Ul 



CO 



o o 



t/) 





Plot 
Symbol 


I— t 


CM 


ro 


<:f 


LO 


to 


o 
o 

Oi 

o 
oo 

to 
o 

a: 


CPHCs 
at 0.3g 


CO 


CM 


** 

• 

CM 


1— 1 

• 

IT) 


ro 


o 
ro 


Average Ratio 
of PGAs at _ 

Probability 


00 

LO 


O 

ro 

. 

»-H 


« 

t-H 


ro 

I-H 


00 

. 
.-H 


ro 

lO 
«-H 


Secondary 

Soil 

Category 


1 

■o 
c 
eo 
00 


CM 

1 

•(— 

t— 


r-l 
1 

T3 
C 
03 

00 


r-l 

1 

•o 
c= 
03 
oo 


f — 1 

1 
■o 

c 

03 

oo 


«-H 

1 

-o 

c 

03 

OO 


Results 
in 


Vol. II 
2.9 


Vol. II 
2.16 


Vol. II 
2.17 


Vol. Ill 
2.2 


Vol. Ill 
2.5 


Vol. Ill 
2.6 


Soil 

Category in 
Vols. II-V 


o 
o 
a: 


o 

o 

Qi 


u 
o 


o 
o 
a: 


u 
o 

0£ 


u 
o 
or 


Site 
Name 


Nine Mile 
Point 


c 
c 

03 

rj 
cr 
to 

00 


Three Mile 
Island 


>> 

s- 
s- 

(U 

u. 

V) 

c 

o 

S- 
CQ 


03 

03 
+-> 

03 
O 


Farley 




Section 
Number 


i-H 


C\J 


ro 


^ 


tn 


to 



-2- 



g 



• UJ 



< 

LLI ^ 
H O 

I-H O 

00 Q£ 



O O 



(O 







Plot 
Symbol 


r-- 


00 


crv 


<C 


CO 


CJ 




* 

u 
o 
or 

o 
oo 

(/) 
o 

•r— 
-M 

<o 


CPHCs 
at 0.3g 


o 

• 

ro 


• 

CM 


ro 


LT) 
CM 


I-H 
Lf) 


. — 1 
ro 




Lf) 
O 1 
•1- O 

Di n3«3- •-- 

1 1— 

<U 00 O •!— 

cn<i: I-H jQ 

(O CD •• <0 
S_ CLTO jD 
O) 1 O 
> M- O S- 
CC O .-H Q. 


.-H 
LO 

I-H 


ro 

.-H 


1 — 1 


I-H 
Lf) 

I-H 


cr> 

I-H 


O 

Lf) 

• 
1—1 




Secondary 

Soil 

Category 


I-H 

1 

■o 
c 
fO 

oo 


I-H 

1 

■o 
c 

oo 


r— 1 
1 

•o 

c 

oo 


I-H 

1 


I-H 

1 
■o 

fO 

oo 


Till-1 




Results 
in 


Vol. Ill 
2.9 


Vol. Ill 
2.10 


Vol. Ill 
2.14 


Vol. V 
2.1 


Vol. V 
2.2 


Vol. V 
2.6 




Soil 

Category in 
Vols. II-V 


o 
o 
en 


u 
o 


o 
o 
a: 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 
on 




Site 
Name 


<0 

c 

£= 

.a 

i. 
o 

z 


Qi 
CL) 

c 
o 
u 
o 


cu 
oo 


(/) 
to 

4- 
<C 


>> 

fl3 
O 


Duane Arnold 






Section 
Number 


r-. 


00 


C3^ 


o 

I-H 


I-H 

I-H 


CM 

I-H 



ro 



+-> 
u 

oo 

O) 
to 



to 

o 

•r— 
-t-> 
fO 

i_ 

CU 

+-> 

14- 
O 

(/) 

o 

•r— 
-t-> 
(O 

U 
fO 

u 

O) 
x: 
-t-> 

c: 
o 



CD 
■D 

o 



O) 

+-) 
o 



-3- 







■ — / 



/" 



Figure 1.1 Map showing the location of the sites with structures founded on 
both rock and shallow soil. Map symbols are given in Table 1.1. 



-4- 



2. RESULTS AND SITE SPECIFIC DISCUSSION 

2.0 General Introduction 

In Sections 2.1 to 2.12 we provide the results for the secondary soil category 
for the sites listed in Table 1.1. Using a uniform format for each site 
(i.e., each section) we first present table 2.SN.1 (where "SN" stands for Site 
Number) providing the following information: 

Secondary soil category used in the analysis to correct for local 
site conditions. 

For each S-Expert the table 2.SN.1 provides a listing of the four 
seismic zones which contribute most to the hazard in terms of the 
peak ground acceleration (PGA) at both lower PGA (0.125g) and at 
higher PGA (0.6g) values. The zone ID's listed in tables are keyed 
to the S-Experts' maps given in Appendix B of this volume. 

The contribution of various zones given in the table for each site is limited 
only to the contribution to the best estimate hazard curves (BEHCs). That is, 
only the zones on the best estimate (BE) map (i.e., those zones which have a 
probability of existence of 0.5 or greater) and only the BE PGA models are 
used. This, as is discussed in Section 3.3 of Vols. II-V, is a limitation 
that should be kept in mind as in a few cases, zones with a probability of 
existence of less than 0.5 which may contribute might not be listed in 
Table 2.SN.1. 

The table is followed by Figs. 2.SN.1 to 2.SN.11 (SN = Site Number given in 
Table 1.1). The first four figures. Figs. 2.SN.1 - 2.SN.4 give various PGA 
hazard curves. The next six figures. Figs. 2.SN.5 - 2.SN.10 give various 
5 percent damped pseudo relative velocity spectra for various return 
periods. It should be noted that the spectral calculations have only been 
made at five periods, 0.04s, 0.1s, 0.2s, 0.4s, and 1.0s and straight lines 
have been used to connect these points to get the shapes plotted. 

Figures 2.SN.1 give a comparison between the best estimate hazard curve (BEHC) 
and the arithmetic mean hazard curve (AMHC) for the peak ground acceleration 
(PGA). The BEHC and the AMHC are aggregated over all S- and G-Experts and 
include the experts' self weights. Reference should be made to Section 2 and 
Appendix C of Vol. 1 for a discussion about these two estimators. Briefly, in 
our elicitation process we asked each S-Expert to indicate which set of zones 
he considered his "best estimate" in the sense that it represented the mode of 
the distribution of all his choices and similarly for the best estimate values 
for all of the seismicity parameters for each zone. We also asked each G- 
Expert to indicate which ground motion model represented his best estimate 
model. Then, as indicated in Vol. I, the set of best estimate zones and 
seismicity parameters are used with each of the best estimate ground motion 
models to generate 55 BEHCs' (11 S-Experts and 5 G-Experts make 55 pairs). 
These 55 curves are then aggregated using both the S- and G-Experts' self 
weights. The AMHC is generated in the usual manner using all 2750 simulations 
of the Monte Carlo analysis. 

-5- 



Figures 2.SN.2 give the BEHC for each S-Expert aggregated over the five 
G-Experts. Whenever individual S-Experts' hazard curves are plotted they are 
denoted by the plot key given in Table 2.0. Figure 2.SN.2 gives a measure of 
the range of difference of opinion between the S-Experts. 

Figures 2.SN.3 give the 15th, 50th and 85th constant percentile hazard curves 
(CPHCs) based on all 2750 simulations and give a measure of the overall 
uncertainty. 

Figures 2.SN.4 give a comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil 
category as compared to the rock case reported previously in Vols. II-V. This 
comparison shows the impact on the seismic hazard of the correction for local 
soil conditions for the structures founded on shallow soil. 

Figures 2.SN.5 give the best estimate uniform hazard spectra (BEUHS) for 
return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, and 10,000 years, aggregated over all 
S-and G-Experts. 

Figures 2.SN.6 give the 1000 year return period BEUHS for each of the 
S-Experts, aggregated over the G-Experts. The S-Experts' BEUHS are plotted 
using the symbols in Table 2.0. These plots give a good measure of the 
significance of the differences in opinion between the S-Experts. 

Figures 2.SN.7,8,9 give the 15th, 50th and 85th constant percentile uniform 
hazard spectra (CPUHS) aggregated over all S- and G-Experts for return periods 
of 500, 1000 and 10,000 years. The spread between the 15th and 85th CPUHS 
gives a good measure of the overall uncertainty in the estimate of the seismic 
hazard at the site. 

Figures 2.SN.10 give the 50th CPUHS for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 
5000 and 10,000 years, aggregated over all S- and G-Experts. 

Figures 2.SN.11 give a comparison between the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
CPUHS between the shallow soil case and the rock case. 

A separate discussion is given when some factors of interest are noted. In 
Section 3 comparisons between the sites and general observations are made. 



-6- 



TABLE 2.0 

PLOT SYMBOL KEY USED FOR INDIVIDUAL 
S-EXPERTS ON FIGS. 2.SN.2 AND 2.SN.6 



Expert No. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

10 

11 

12 

13 



Plot Symbol 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
A 
B 
C 




-7- 



2.1 Nine Mile Point 



•m 



The location 
symbol "1". 



of the Nine Mile Point 
Most of the structures 



site is shown in 
at the Nine Mile 



Fig. 1.1 by the plot 
Point site are founded 



on 



rock. The hazard results 
Vol. II. In this section 
founded on shallow soil, 
to be best represented by 
Vol. I. Table 2.1.1 and 



for the rock case are given in Section 2.9 of 
we present the hazard curves for the structures 
The soil at the Nine Mile Point site was considered 
our Sand-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of 
Figs. 2.1.1 to 2.1.11 give the basic results most 



applicable to the structures founded on shallow soil at the Nine Mile Point 
site. 

If comparisons are made between Table 2.1.1 and Table 2.9.1 of Vol. II we see 
some changes. Primarily, the shallow soil amplifies the ground motion from 
smaller nearby earthquakes making the local zones more significant thereby 
producing a motion relatively richer in high frequency energy than would the 
rock site, (see Fig. 2.1.11); e.g., for S-Expert 2 the CZ, which is the S- 
Expert 2's host zone (i.e., the zone in which the site is located for the 
particular S-Expert), is indicated to be the most significant contributor in 
Table 2.1.1, whereas on Table 2.9.1 of Vol. II zone 32 is the most significant 
contributor. Similarly we see that in Table 2.1.1 for S-Expert 7 at the 
higher g levels zone 41 becomes the most significant contributor as compared 
to zones 17 and 41 in Table 2.9.1 of Vol. II. 

We see from Fig. 2.1.4 that the median CPHC applicable to the structures 
founded on the shallow soil is significantly higher than the median CPHC 
applicable to the structure founded on rock for the Nine Mile Point site. 



However, when 
ground motion 
Here the 1000 
(approximately 
Fig. 2.1.4 by 
exceedance of 
return periods 
existence of s 
1.55 we might 



discussing site amplification, one must be careful to compare 
parameter values rather than the probabilities of exceedance. 
year return period PGA for rock is a factor of 1.6 
) smaller than for the shallow soil. This can be seen on 
making the ratio of PGA values for a constant probability of 
10"^. The same ratio can be found at 10,000 and 100,000 year 
. Thus, we would say that the average amplification due to 
hallow soil at this site is very close to the average ratio of 
expect (see Section 3.1 for more details on this point). 



Similarly we see from Fig. 2.1.11 that the 10,000 year return period median 
CPUHS is significantly higher for the shallow soil case as compared to the 
rock case. There is a much smaller difference between the 85th percentiles 
for the two cases. These results are in general agreement with the discussion 
given in Section 2.2 of Vol. VI. 



-8- 



CM 

U 



»-N 

o: I 

UlVi 

a. 

XI- 
UJZ 
I M 
(/)D 
0. 
0£ 
UJIU 

I 

M 
(OZ 
UJ 

ZUJ 
DZ 
Nm 

z 
(- 
zo: 

<D 

l-U. 

D 

a. 



I- 

D 













z 




















D 




II O^ 








1 <M 
1 


1 N 


1 to 

1 


c^ 
1 


N 

1 

1 a 


1 OO 


1 (M 1 


ON rs. 

1 1 r- 


rv 




1 UJ(M 1 UJO 
12 1 Z 


1 UJa 

1 Z 


1 UJG 
1 Z 


1 O-r- 
1 H 


1 -1 • 1 • 1 . 1 
1 uio 1 uio 1 UJO 1 uit- 1 uia 

• 2 12 12 12 1 ^ 


1 • 1 

1 UJo 1 
1 2 1 




1 O 

IN 

1 
1 


1 a 

1 N 

1 


1 D 
1 N 

1 2 


1 D 
1 N 

1 2 


1 D 
1 U 

1 


1 D 

1 N 
1 


ID ID 
IN IN 
1 1 
1 I 


1 D ID 
IN IN 
1 1 

1 1 


1 D 1 
1 N 1 
1 1 




Z 1 1 
D t tt\ 1 r- 
M 1 ,- . 1 N^ . 
1- 1 CO 1 f- 
3 1 UJ 1 UJ 

n 1 z 1 z 

M ID ID 
0£^ IN IN 
h-O 1 1 


1 D 
1 N 
1 

1 -O 
1 Q. 
1 £ 

1 D 
1 O 


1 D 
1 N 
1 
1 -O 

1 Q. 
1 £ 
1 D 

1 o 

1 


1 

1 It 
1 

1 to 
1 UJ 
1 z 

1 D 

IN 
1 


1 i i r«. 

1 1 OO 1 
1 to -It- • I 
1 O 1 to 1 r 
1 UJ i UJ 1 Ul 
12 12 1 Z 
ID ID ID 
IN IN IN 

1 * * 


1 1 
1 to 1 TT 
• 1 • 1 to • 
- 1 t^ 1 to 
1 Ul 1 Ul 
12 12 
ID ID 
IN IN 


1 1 
1 N 1 

1 O 1 
1 Ul 1 
1 2 1 
1 D 1 
1 N 1 




ZO 1 


1 


1 


1 




1 Z 
1 D 

IN 
1 If 


1 1 


1 1 


1 1 




Ovo ) 1 

O • 1 ON -IN • 

O 1 r-ON 1 rOON 

U.'-' 1 1 T<- 


1 
1 
1 NTT 

1 


1 hf) . 

1 i-r«. 

1 


1 

1 in . 
1 rr 


'111 

1 1 NO 1 1 

•ir^'i -iNr-io- 
> 1 T-in 1 in 1 vo 1 too 


1 1 

1 r— • 1 
1 r-r- 1 




Ot 1 UJ 

O 12 

}^0. 1 D 

1 N 

QX 1 


1 Ul 
1 Z 
1 o 
1 N 


1 Ul 
r 2 
1 D 
1 N 
1 


1 UJ 
1 2 
1 D 
1 N 
1 


1 UJ 
1 2 
1 D 
1 N 


1 • 

1 a. 
1 £ 

1 D 

1 o 


1 to 1 
1 UJ 1 UJ 
i Z 1 z 
ID ID 
IN IN 


1 N 1 <M 
1 UJ 1 UJ 
12 12 
ID ID 
IN IN 


1 1 
1 UJ 1 
1 Z 1 
1 D 1 
1 N 1 




ZO 1 


1 Z 


1 


1 


, 


1 


1 1 


1 1 
1 UJ 1 
1 Z • 1 

1 Oso 1 .-r«. 

1 Nso 1 t^l>^ 


1 1 




<M 1 

X 1 oa 
U 1 NM 
Xh- 1 


1 D • 

1 NO 
1 in 
1 . 


1 

1 r-sa 
1 r-ON 
1 


1 v*tO 
1 r-ON 

1 


1 Nfir- 

1 ON 

1 


1 V 
1 rvON 


1 1 II 
1 • 1 

1 r-r- 1 ON'tf 
1 TTnO 1 T-0< 


1 CO 1 
1 ON 1 




UJ< 1 Ul 


1 Q. 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 UJ 


1 1 
1 Ul 1 Ul 


1 1 

1 II 1 UJ 
1 1 2 


1 in 1 




CQ 1 Z 


1 s: 


1 2 


1 2 


i 2 


• z 


I 2 1 Z 


1 1 




1 D 
O 1 


1 D 

1 O 
1 


1 D 

1 N 
1 


1 D 
1 N 

1 


1 D 

i N 

1 


1 o 
1 N 


ID ID 
IN IN 


IN ID 
1 O IN 


1 N 1 
1 O 1 




Q. 1 


1 




1 


1 

1 


1 

1 


1 1 
1 1 


1 1 
1 1 


1 1 




UJ 1 


j 


1 


1 


1 






1 1 






X 1 


1 




1 




1 


1 1 


1 1 


1 1 




f- 1 


1 




1 




1 


1 1 
1 1 


1 1 
1 1 


1 1 




D 1 

t- 1 in 


1 OO 

1 N 
1 


1 
1 


1 

in 

i- 


1 
1 
1 to 

1 


1 z 

1 D 
1 N 


1 1 

1 1 ON 
1 NO 1 

1 (M 1 


1 1 <t 
1 in 1 ,- 
1 1 to 


1 1 
1 1 
1 1 

1 O 1 

1 T- 1 




-1 • UlTT 
»- 1 Z 
Z 1 D 


1 UIN 
1 Z 
1 D 
1 N 


Ulr^ 

2 
D 
N 


UlhO 

2 
D 
N 


UJo 

2 
D 
N 


Q-tO 

D 
O 


1 UltO 1 UlNj- 
1 Z 12 
ID ID 
IN IN 
1 1 


1 UJ^ 1 UJi-i 
1 Z 1 z 
ID ID 
IN IN 


1 • 1 

1 UJ,- 1 

Z 1 

D 1 

N 1 
1 




M 1 

Ul I 


1 










1 1 


1 1 


1 




M 1 r- 
Z IN- 
O 1 CO 
M 1 Ul 

V) 1 z 
1 D 
»- IN 
<n i 


1 r- 

1 >^ • 1 
1 N 1 
1 UJr- 1 
1 2 1 
1 D 1 
1 N 1 
1 1 


N) . 1 
N 1 
Ul 1 
2 1 
D 1 
N 1 


to 

to 
Ul 1 
2 1 
D 1 
N 1 


N 
UJ i 
2 1 
D 1 
N 1 


CO • 

to 

Ul 

z 

D 
N 


1 1 r^ 

1 00 1 

I NO 1 r- 
1 Ulr- 1 Ulr- 
•Z 12 
ID ID 
I N IN 


1 'T IV 
1 • 1 to . 
1 CO 1 OO 
1 UJ(M 1 UJ 1 
1 Z 1 Z 1 
ID ID 1 
• N IN 1 


1 
(M 1 

'~rt 1 
Ulr- 1 
Z 1 
O 1 

N 1 




D 1 


1 2 1 










1 1 


1 1 1 






S-s 1 


1 D I 










• 1 


1 1 1 






O 1 Ov • 
Oi« 1 .-o 
ZN 1 r- 
M<- 1 UJ 

h- . 1 Z 
30 1 D 
«^ 1 N 

•H< 1 


1 N • 1 
1 m 1 
1 -N 1 
1 a. 1 
1 s: t 

1 D 1 
1 U 1 
1 1 


Nrv 1 

Uj"" 1 
Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


ON • 1 

r-in 1 

Ul 1 
2 1 
O 1 
N 1 


in • 1 
to 1 

Ul 1 
2 1 
O 1 
N 1 


tor«. 

Ul 

z 

D 

N 


1 1 >o 

1 'Tin 1 in 
1 N 1 (M 
1 UJ 1 Ul 
1 Z 1 z 
ID ID 
IN IN 


1 1 1 
1 to • 1 O . 1 
1 O 1 IOnO 1 
1 to 1 N 1 
1 Ul 1 Ul 1 
1 Z 1 Z 1 
ID ID 1 
IN IN 1 


r— • 1 
r-in 1 
N 1 
Ui 1 
Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 




QfO 1 


1 1 










1 1 


1 1 1 






l-O. 1 




, 1 


, 1 


J 




1 II 


1 Ul 1 1 






Z 1 O^ 
OS 1 NIN. 
OD 1 


1 Ni- 1 

Mso 1 

1 


f-O 1 

r-eo 1 


soin 1 

t-OO 1 


scr 1 

ON 1 


NO 

r^oo 


• 1 • 
rv^ 1 ONin 
T-m 1 ,-in 


1 Z • 1 • 1 
1 ON 1 r-rr 1 
1 NKO 1 tOso 1 


O 1 
NO 1 


1 
Q 


-J 1 Ul 
Vi 1 z 
UJH- 1 D 
Z«t 1 N 
D 1 


UJ 1 
2 1 
D 1 

N 1 
1 


UJ 1 
Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


UJ 1 
2 1 
D 1 
N 1 


Ui 1 
Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


Ul 

z 

D 
N 


1 
UJ 1 UJ 
2 1 Z 
D 1 D 
N 1 N 


1 i 1 

II 1 Ul 1 

1 Z 1 

N 1 D 1 

O 1 N 1 


in 1 

r- 1 

N 1 
O 1 


Z 


N 1 •• •• 




.* •• 1 


•• •• 1 


I 




1 


1 1 




< 

>- 

D 
O 


1 Q • 

1 l-ij- 
1 Z 1 
1 UJO 1 
1 ZO 1 
1 D 1 
1 N.X 1 


q" I 

Ml- 1 

2 1 
UJD 1 
20 1 
O 1 
N>« 1 


Q • 1 

Ml- 1 

Z 1 
UID 1 
ZU 1 
D 1 
N.^? 1 


Q • 1 

MH 1 

Z 1 
UJD 1 
ZU 1 
D 1 
N.X 1 


a"- 1 

Mt- 1 

2 1 
UJD 1 
ZO 1 
D 1 

N.^; 1 


Q • 

M|- 

Z 1 
UID 1 
ZO 1 
D 1 

N^? 1 


Q 'IQ -IQ -IQ .| 

Ml- 1 Mh- 1 Ml- 1 Mh- 1 
.21 Z 1 Z 1 Z 1 
UID 1 UID 1 UJD 1 UJO 1 
ZO 1 ZO 1 ZO 1 ZO 1 
O ID ID ID 1 

N^? 1 N>^ 1 N>; 1 NK* 1 


q" 1 

Ml- 1 
Z 1 
UJD 1 
20 1 
D 1 
NJ< 1 


UJ 


1 1 












1 1 


1 1 




»- 


1 1 












1 1 


1 1 




o 

-J 


l-UI 1 U\ 1 
V>Z 1 ,- 1 
DD 1 1 


D 1 
N 1 


r- 1 
r- 1 


ro 1 

r- 1 


D 1 
N 1 


D 1 
N 1 


1 1 1 1 

I 1 Z 1 II 1 

»- 1 On 1 D 1 1 

V 1 r- IN I't 1 




M 

D 
UJ 


XN 1 Ul 1 
1 Z 1 
1 D 1 
»- 1 N 1 
a. • 1 1 
XE 1 1 


Q. 1 
£ 1 
D 1 
O 1 


HI 1 
Z 1 
O 1 
M 1 


LU 1 
2 1 
D 1 
M 1 


Q. 1 
Z. 1 
D 1 
O 1 


0. 1 
£ 1 
O 1 
O 1 


Ui 1 Ul 1 
Z 1 2 1 
D 1 O 1 
N 1 N 1 
1 1 


1 1 
II 1 UJ 1 

1 Z 1 
N 1 D 1 
O 1 N 1 

1 1 


m 1 

N 1 
O 1 


M 
<0 


1 3 1 T- 1 

(OZ 1 1 


N 1 


■O 1 


<r 1 


m 1 


sO 1 


hv 1 o 1 
1 f- 1 


r- 1 (M 1 


O 1 
r- 1 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



on 
< 

LlI 



< 



o 



CO 

< 

m 
O 
a- 



10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



-4 
10 



-5 
10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



T 



T 



o 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




•!f in (£) [^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC* '2 



NINE MILE POINT S-2 



Figure 2.1.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Nine Mile Point site. 



-10- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



a: 

< 

>- 

Q. 



O 
2 
< 



O 
X 



o 



CO 

< 

m 
o 

CL- 
Q. 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



-4 
10 



-5 
10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISMICITY EXPERTS 








"* IT) ID rv 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC»'2 



NINE MILE POINT S-2 



Figure 2.1.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Nine Mile 
Point site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-11- 



E U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



< 

us 

>- 

on 

UJ 

a. 



o 
< 



O 



m 
< 

CD 

o 

CL 

a. 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



10 



10 



10 



10 



10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 




o 



ro "* ^ ^ 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC»*2 



NINE MILE POINT S-2 



Figure 2.1.3 



CPHCs for the 
the structures 
Experts' input 



15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
for the Nine Mile Point site. 



-12- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES ^ 1 5 . , 50 . AND 85. 

HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



a: 
< 

LiJ 

;- 

q: 
u/ 

CL 



< 



10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



o 10 

X 



!z -5 
-J 10 

m 
< 
m 
o 
a: 

Ol 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




li ACCELERATION CM/SEC** 2 

NINE MILE POINT S-2 



Figure 2.1.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Nine Mile Point 
site. 



-13- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



o 
o 



500.. 1000., 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
3 BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



10 



10 



o 

LJ 
(/) 

^ 1 

^ 10 

>- 



10 



-1 

10 



CM 

I o 



■'-n- 



■n- 




i-O -<* iT) torMXTD 



I o 



r-i ro "* lOUDh^OCT) 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

NINE MILE POINT S-2 



o 



Figure 2.1.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Nine Mile Point 
site. 



-14- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



o 

LiJ 
t/) 



2 

o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



CM 

I O 




iMJ. 



ro -^ in <£>rvoca> 



I o 



m ^ ID U)hvODJ> 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

NINE MILE POINT S-2 




Figure 2.1.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Nine Mile Point site. Plot symbols 
are given in Table 2.0 



-15- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

UJ 

m 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 

10 




CM 
I O 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

NINE MILE POINT S-2 



Figure 2.1.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and 6-Experts for the Nine 
Mile Point site. 



-16- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

UJ 



o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




►o ■>* IT) iDr^oaj) 



c-j rn ^ mush-od 



CM 
I O 



I O 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

NINE MILE POINT S-2 



o 



Figure 2.1.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Nine Mile Point 
site. 



-17- 



o 
(/I 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR : 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



I o 



^^^^^T 




c-( K) •>*• If) ior--JXxr> 



r~i to -^ ir)cor~v<xxr> 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

NINE MILE POINT S-2 



c4 ho ■<* in i£>rvccB) 



Figure 2.1.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Nine Mile Point 
site. 



-18- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



10 



10 



o 
to 



3 
o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




RETURN PERIODS 



CURVE 5 = 
CURVE 4 = 
CURVE 
CURVE 



3 ^ 
2 = 



CURVE 1 = 



c-i K) -* ir> iDr-jictn 



(O "* inco^oooi 



10000 

5000 

2000 

1000 

500 



YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 



rO ^ m lOr^aXCT) 



I o 



' 2 PERIOD (SEC) 2 

NINE MILE POINT S-2 



Figure 2.1.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Nine Mile Point site 



-19- 



o 

UJ 

(/) 

\ 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



To 



Shallow Soil 
Rock 




iMili 



r-j K) -* incDr-^oocr> 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

NINE MILE POINT S-2 






Figure 2.1.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Nine Mile Point site. 



-20- 



2.2 Susquehanna 

The location of the Susquehanna site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol 
"2". Most of the structures at the Susquehanna site are founded on rock. The 
hazard results for the rock case are given in Section 2.16 of Vol. II. In 
this section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on 
shallow soil. The soil at the Susquehanna site was considered to be best 
represented by our Till-2 soil category described in Section 3,7 of Vol. I. 
Table 2.2.1 and Figs. 2.2.1 to 2.2.11 give the basic results most applicable 
to the structures founded on shallow soil at the Susquehanna site. 

In Section 2.16 of Vol. II we noted that the zones near the site contributed 
most to the BEHC for PGA, thus as expected we do not see major changes between 
Table 2.16.1 in Vol. II and Table 2.2.1 in this section. Additionally, the 
differences in the CPHCs (Fig. 2.2.4) and the CPUHS (Fig. 2.2.11) between the 
rock and Till-2 cases are similar to the differences found in Section 2.2 of 
Vol. VI. 



-21- 



Csl 



oe 

UJ 

0. 

XN 
Ut I 

I in 

< 

UJZ 

a.<c 

X 

in\n 

UJ3 

zo 

V) 

H 

ZD£ 

<D 

HU. 

02 

D 

Q. 



D 



N 



>- 
0£ 
D 
C9 

tu 

»- 
< 
U 



</1 



lU 



</) 







w 




M 


in 




K> 




ro 


OO 


OO 




•- 


1 K) 


1 V 






1 ro 














UJO 


ujcg 


UJO 


UIO 


UIO 


UJO 


UJO 


UJO 


1 UJO 


UIO 


1 UIO 1 




1 z 


1 z 


z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


r Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 Z 1 




1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 O 


1 D 


1 D 1 




N 


1 N 


N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


N 


1 N 1 


z 














II 


eQ 








o 


r- 


<M 




so 


to 






r V 


'J- 


r* 


l>^ 1 


M 


M • 


r^ • 


N . 




1 


rv . 


N • 










t- 


O 


OS 


O 


1 O 


r* 


1 s« 


O 


1 o 


1 o 


1 o 


1 O 1 


3 


UJ 


1 Ul 


Ul 


1 Ut 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 1 


ea 


z 


Z 


z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 1 


hH 


D 


D 


D 


1 o 


1 o 


1 D 


D 


o 


1 O 


1 o 


1 O 1 


OS--. 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


1 N 


N 


N 


N 


1 N 


1 N 1 


HO 
























ZO 






Z 




z 


z 




II 


Ul 






DsO 






o 




D 


1 D 






z 






O • 


o . 


00 • 


N • 


T— • 


N • 


1 N • 


r- • 


OS • 


D • 


N • 


O • 1 


o 


M.- 


NOs 


o 


.-O 


O 


so 


'Ti- 


r-Os 


N.- 


rON 


r-O 1 


11.W 




M 


• 




•N 


•N 












D<t 


UJ 


UJ 


0. 


UJ 


0. 


0. 


UJ 


Ul 


II 


UJ 


Ul 1 


O 


2 


Z 


z: 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 




Z 


Z 1 


XQ. 


D 


D 


o 


o 


o 


D 


o 


o 


N 


D 


O 1 




N 


N 


o 


N 


o 


O 


N 


N 


O 


N 


N 1 


QX 
























ZO 




Z 




















<CM 


• 


D • 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


\r\ • 


• 


• 


• 1 


X 


OS 


NO 


o 


NO 


T-OS 


f^ 


OS 


r- 


ifteo 


rvoo 


O 1 


o 


<9-0v 


U> 


ino 


,-o 


r«- 


so so 


r«-ON 


OS 


OS 


NOS 


O 1 


IH 




• 


^ 


r- 














mf- 1 


UJ<X 


UJ 


0. 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


r- 1 


M 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 






o 


D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


D 


o 


o 


N 1 


o 

0. 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 1 
























UJ 
























X 
























1- 
























D 
















so 








H 


Ov 


r~ 


r* 


oo 


K) 




K> 




TT 


■•r 


^ 1 




r— 


M 


^ 






lO 


^ 






ro 


^. 1 


>- 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


. 


• 


• 


• 




. 1 


-J 


UJr- 


uirv 


Ulr- 


Ul,- 


UIN 


Ulso 


UICJ 


Ul,- 


mv 


Ulro 


UJrO 1 


1- 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 1 


z 


D 


D 


o 


o 


o 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 1 


o 

M 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 1 




Z 






Z 


Z 












u. 




D 






D 


o 




oa 








M 


T— 


N 




^ 


N 


N 


r^ 


V 


to 


r- 


N 1 


z 


<SI • 


• 


Csl • 


^ • 


• 


• 




• 


• 


ro • 




o 


(M 


•CM 


r- 


V 


•N 


•OS 


ro 


N 


lt\ 


OS 


so 1 


M 


UJ 


0.1- 


Ul 


UJ 


0. 


0. 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 1 


(/) 


Z 


Z 


2 


z 


Z 


s: 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 1 




D 


D 


D 


o 


O 


o 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 1 


1- 


N 


O 


N 


N 


o 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 1 


<0 
























D 
















II 


UJ 






Z^ 


















Z 






o 


o • 


M • 


• 


so • 


r* • 


• 


^ • 


OS . 


o • 


N • 


O • 1 


Om 


csir^ 


roin 


Vi- 


i-r^ 


v 


r^so 


^sO 


f-OO 


Nso 


rom 


f-Os 1 


zrsi 




t— 






r» 


J— 








r- 




M,- 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


II 


UJ 


UJ 1 


1- • 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 




z 


Z 1 


=>o 


D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


D 


N 


D 


O 1 


gqw 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 


N 


N 1 


MC 
























QSO 
























HO. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


Ift . 


• 


• 


• 1 


z 


OS 


eoift 


u\ 


t^\f\ 


so OS 


^ 


f 


SO 


in in 


I^N 


O 1 


02 


TTOO 


CM so 


if\0^ 


1-ec 


r^ 


so so 


P>-00 


eo 


oo 


Nl^ 


00 1 


OD 






















in 1 


—J 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


,— 1 


CO 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 




UIK 


o 


D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


N 1 


z<t 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 1 


D 
























N 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 1 




Q • 


O • 


Q • 


Q • 


Q • 


Q • 


Q • 


Q . 


Q • 


Q • 


a • 1 




Ml- 


•Hl- 


»H|- 


Mh- 


Mh- 


tHh- 


tHl- 


•Hl- 


IHI- 


1-1 1- 


Ml- 1 




z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 1 




UID 


UJO 


UIO 


UJO 


UIO 


UIO 


UIO 


UID 


UID 


UIO 


UJO 1 




ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO i 




D 


o 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


O 


O 


D 


D 1 




NJ< 


N>< 
O 


N.^ 


NJ< 


N>? 
D 


NJ^ 
O 


NX 


Ni< 


Ni< 


N^? 


NJ.; 1 


h-liJ 




N 




N 


N 


N 






in 


1^ 




C02 


'T 




\t\ 


r- 






fs- 






N 




DO 




• 






• 


• 










in 1 


XN 


UJ 


0. 


UJ 


Ul 


0. 


0. 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


r- 1 




Z 


s: 1 


z 


z 


s 


S 


z 


z 


z 


z 






D 


o 


o 


o 


D 


o 


o 


D 


o 


D 


N 1 


h- 


N 


O 1 


N 


N 


O 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 1 


0. • 
























XS 1 
























1 15 1 


f» 


Csl 


ro 


V 


\r\ 


so 


rs- 


o 


^ 


N 


ro 1 


(/)Z 
















r- 


r- 


T— 


f— 1 



-22- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



< 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



I ■ I *j 
Q- 10 



< 
o 

^ -4 

o 10 



o 

>- 

L -5 

-J 10 
o 

q: 
a. 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




o 

+ 



-* ID (D r^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC**2 



SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
6-Experts for the Susquehanna site. 



-23- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



< 



CD 

< 

m 
o 

D.' 
CL. 



-1 

10 



10 



-3 
10 



-4 
10 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISMICITY EXPERTS 




O 



•rt \r> i£> r^ 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC'Z 



SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Susquehanna 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-24- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



10 



-2 
10 

< 

UJ 

>- 

Q- 10 



u 

z 
< 
o 

Ul ^ 

o 10 



t- 


-5 


_) 


10 


ffi 




< 




m 




O 




ft- 




a. 






-6 




10 



-7 

10 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC 



SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the Susquehanna site. 



-25- 



''^^^^^^nM^^^ - * 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 

cr 
< 
ui 

>- 

a. 10 



< 

Q 

"^ -4 

UJ ^ 

u 10 

X 

UI 



!l -5 
-1 10 

CD 
< 

m 
o 

q: 
a. 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC* *2 

SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Susquehanna site. 



-26- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



500.. 1000.. 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



10 



10 



o 

Ul 

t/) 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 




CSI 

I O 



K) •<* iT) l£>f^JXXT> 



to ■'I- miDh^axr) 



to -^ in i£>t^^oocr> 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Susquehanna site. 



-27- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



10 



10 



o 

UJ 

to 
o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 




I o 



-5f in tDr^oco) 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Susquehanna site. Plot symbols are 
given in Table 2.0 



-28- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

to 



2 
o 



o 
o 



ill 

> 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



I o 




hO ■* in lorMxxn 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the 
Susquehanna site. 



-29- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SO I L 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR : 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



..ft, , 
-11 



o 

UJ 

m 
o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



•f^r^^"^^^ 



CM 

I o 




^•^B^ 



To 



ro -* m(£>r-^oocr> 



PERIOD (SEC) ° 

SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



o 



Figure 2.2.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Susquehanna site. 



-30- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

UJ 



o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




CM 
I O 



Kl -"t iniI>t-~OQT> 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Susquehanna site. 



-31- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SO I L 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



o 

Ul 

to 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



CM 

I o 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



■^T 



■tidB^ta^ 




RETURN PERIODS : 

CURVE 5 = 10000. YEARS 

CURVE 4 = 5000. YEARS 

CURVE 3 = 2000. YEARS 

CURVE 2 = 1000. YEARS 

CURVE 1 = 500. YEARS 



rO ■<* lO IDf^MlCCn 



I O 



r>i ro -^ 1/) tDr-j3Cxr> 



c-j 1^ •* to tX)^~«»> 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUSQUEHANNA S-2 



Figure 2.2.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Susquehanna site. 



-32- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR : 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



u 

\ 

o 



u 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



"t^T 



^"■^^^^^^^ 



• •Shallow Soil 

Rock 




hO Tt in tot^^ooT) 



I o 



I^H^B^B^I^ 



rg K) -^ Lnu>r--.a:cr> 
PERIOD (SEC) °2 

SUSQUEHANNA 



" o 



Figure 2.2.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Susquehanna site. 



-33- 



2.3 Three Mile Island 

The location of the Three Mile Island site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot 
symbol "3". Most of the structures at the Three Mile Island site are founded 
on rock. The hazard results for the rock case are given in Section 2.17 of 
Vol. II. In this section we present the hazard curves for the structures 
founded on shallow soil. The soil at the Three Mile Island site was 
considered to be best represented by our Sand-1 soil category described in 
Section 3.7 of Vol. I. Table 2.3.1 and Figs. 2,3.1 to 2.3.11 give the basic 
results most applicable to the structures founded on shallow soil at the Three 
Mile Island site. 

As can be seen from Fig. 1.1 the Three Mile Island site is near the 
Susquehanna site and similarly the hazard for both the rock case is primarily 
from nearby zones. Thus there are only relatively minor differences between 
Table 2.3.1 and Table 2.17.1 of Vol. II. The differences in the CPHCs 
(Fig. 2.3.4) and the CPUHS (Fig. 2.3.11) between the rock and Sand-1 cases are 
similar to the differences found in Section 2.2 of Vol. VI. 



-34- 



z 
o 

N 






I 
h-Vi 

ee. 

UJQ 
CLZ 

x< 

UJ_l 
I <0 

OfUJ 
UJ_l 

a.M 

(O 

UIUJ 
ZUJ 
O0£ 
NX 
»- 
»- 

za£ 

<D 
HU. 

oe 

o 
a. 



«- 

D 



I 

a 
z 
<t 



>- 

D 
O 
UJ 

(- 
<. 

u 



D 



UJ 



Vi 



« 

M 

HO 

zo 

D>« 
O • 

o 
U.W 

D<I 

O 
>?Q. 

QX 

ZO 
<n 

X 

o 

IH 
UJ4 

< 

o 
a. 

UJ 

X 






o 



o 

M 

to 



D 

o 

OlA 

Z(M 



3o 

M<t 

0£O 
t-Q. 

Z 

OD 

.J 

to 

UJK 
Z<t 

D 
N 



l-UI 

toz 

DO 
XN 



0. • 

I 3 
(OZ 



1 ro 


1 CM 


1 ro 






' •- 


1 'T 






1 r- 




1 UJo 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 0.0 


1 UJO 


1 UIO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


t UJO 


1 UIO 


1 UJO 1 


1 Z 


: Z 


1 Z 


1 £ 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z t 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 O 


1 O 


1 D 


1 o 


1 O 


1 O t 


1 N 

1 
1 


1 N 


1 N 


1 O 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 
1 II 

1 OS 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 1 


1 
1 o 


1 (M 


1 <t 


1 00 


1 ON 




1 II 


1 OO 


1 f^ 


1 O 1 


1 fsl • 


1 ro • 


1 00 • 


1 


1 


1 r^ • 


1 CM • 


1 •— • 




1 r— 


1 r- • 1 


1 O 


1 O 


1 O 


1 M 


1 o 


1 o 


1 O 


1 V 


1 o 


1 O 


1 O 1 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UI 


1 UJ 


1 UI 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UI 


1 UI 


1 UJ 1 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 1 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 o 


1 o 


1 O 


1 o 


1 o 


1 O 


1 O 1 


1 N 
1 


1 N 
1 Z 


1 N 
t Z 


1 N 


f N 
1 Z 


1 N 
1 Z 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 
1 UI 


1 N 


1 N 1 


1 


1 D 


1 D 




1 O 


1 o 




1 tn 


1 z 






1 


1 N • 


1 N • 


1 N • 


1 N • 


1 N • 


1 ON • 


1 


1 o • 


1 rv • 


1 • 1 


1 t-O 

1 


1 o 


1 O 


1 .-M 
1 r- 


1 o 


1 Ov 


1 CMO 


1 N 


1 NO 


1 CMrO 


1 O 1 

1 r-. 1 


1 UJ 


1 Ql 


1 CL 


1 UJ 


1 CL 


1 Q. 


1 UI 


1 UI 


1 II 


1 UI*" 




1 z 


^ 


1 £ 


1 Z 


1 :e 


1 s: 


1 Z 


1 z 




1 z 




1 o 


D 


1 O 


1 O 


1 o 


1 o 


1 O 


1 o 


1 N 


1 o 


1 N 1 


1 N 


O 


1 o 


1 N 


1 o 


1 o 


1 N 


1 N 
1 « • 


1 O 


1 N 


1 O 1 


1 o 


00 ON 


o 


i-l/» 


t-O 


I— 


1 o 


1 ^TT 


1 mo 


1 CMr^ 


1 O 1 


1 vo 


(MON 


irto 


f-eo 


o 


1 SOON 


1 rvo 


1 1^ 


1 o 


1 rooo 


O 1 


1 ^ 




^ 




^ 




^ 




j^ 




1 \t\,- 1 


1 UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 


1 UJ 


UI 




1 z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


1 z 


z 


z 


1 z 


z 




1 o 


c 


o 


o 


D 


1 o 


D 


o 


o 


D 


N 1 


1 N 

1 

1 
1 
1 

1 
1 


N 


N 


N 


N 

z 

D 


1 N 


N 


N 
so 


N 


N 

<r 


O 1 


1 ^ 


r^ 


^ 


NO 


N 


m 


ro 




^ 


ro 


fmm 1 


1 N 


N 


<- 






r- 


»- 






CM 


r- 1 


1 UJr- 


UJr- 


UO 


UlTT 


CLr- 


UJCM 


UJr- 


UJO 


UJr- 


UJO 


Ulr- 1 


1 z 


Z 


z 


z 


T. 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 1 


1 D 


D 


o 


o 


o 


D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


D 1 


1 N 
1 

1 
1 


N 


N 


N 


o 


N 


N 


N 
II 


N 
UI 

z 


N 


N 1 


1 


Csl 




00 


OS 




r* 


OS 


D 


^» 


O 1 


1 r- • 


M • 


V • 


• 


. 


1*- • 




r— • 


N • 


ro • 


r— • 1 


1 ^ 


M 


o 


rv 


m 


ro 


^ 


CM 




CM 


ro 1 


1 UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


II 


UI 


UI 1 


1 Z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




Z 


Z 1 


1 o 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


o 


o 


N 


D 


O 1 


1 N 
1 1 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 

Z 
D 


N 


N 
BQ 


O 


N 


N 1 


1 o • 


o • 


<t • 


CM • 


so • 


N • 


ON • 


V • 


ro • 


rv • 


. 1 


1 (MM i 


NOCSJ 


eoi- 


.-O 


o 
ro 


TT 


CM CM 


SO 
ro 


CM 


CMr- 
CM 


^ 1 
r»- 1 


1 UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


CL 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 


t— 1 


1 Z 1 


z 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




1 O 1 


D 


O 1 


O 1 


D 


D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


N 1 


1 N 1 
1 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 


N 1 


O 1 


1 rj- 1 


eo<M 1 


00 1 


r-so 1 


.-ro 


NO 1 


*e\ 1 


O 1 


l/>m 1 


CMsO 1 


,_ 1 


1 ^<^ 1 

1 1 


MCT> 1 


irtov 1 


y-vr 1 


M> I 


sOOO 1 


^«.(^ 1 


so 1 


OS 1 


ror^ 1 


ON 1 

ID 1 


1 UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UI 1 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 1 




1 Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 




1 D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


N 1 


1 N 1 
1 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


O t 


1 O • 1 


Q • 1 


Q • 1 


a • 1 


Q • 1 


Q • 1 


Q • 1 


O • 1 


a • 1 


O • 1 


a '• 1 


1 Ml- 1 


Ml- 1 


MJ- 1 


Ml- 1 


MH 1 


Ml- 1 


MK 1 


Ml- 1 


Ml- 1 


MH 1 


Ml- 1 


1 Z r 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


1 UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UIO 1 


UJO 1 


UIO 1 


UJO 1 


UIO 1 


UIO 1 


UJO 1 


1 ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


1 D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


1 N}< 1 
1 1 


N5< 1 


NX* 1 


N>^ 1 


N^< 1 


D 1 


N^^ 1 


N^; 1 

CQ 1 


N>< 1 


N>? 1 


N>< 1 


1 1 


CO 1 




r- 1 


r— 1 


N I 




<»■ 1 


in 1 


1^ 1 




1 ^ 1 
1 1 


(M 1 


\e\ 1 


"" ] 






!>»• 1 






CM 1 


\t\ 1 


1 UI 1 


UI 1 


UI 1 


UI 1 


UI 1 


CL 1 


UJ 1 


UI 1 


UI 1 


UJ 1 


r- 1 


1 Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


■z. 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 




1 D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


N 1 


1 N 1 
1 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


O 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


O 1 


1 1 
1 1- 1 
1 1 


CM 1 


to 1 


V 1 


us 1 


s« 1 


r». 1 


O 1 
r- 1 


- 1 


N 1 


ro 1 



-35- 






0^ 
< 
LiJ 

>- 

q: 



o 
< 

Q 



O 
X 



O 



< 

m 
o 



10 



-2 
10 



10 



-4 
10 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



I I 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




O 



ACCELERATION CM/SEC'*2 

THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



Figure 2.3.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Three Mile Island site. 



-36- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



< 

UJ 

>- 
oc 

LJ 
Q. 



Ul 
O 
2 
< 

C 
LiJ 
Ul 
O 
X 



O 



CD 
< 

m 
O 
q: 
a. 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



-4 
10 



-5 
10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISM I CITY EVPERTS 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC*'2 

THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



Figure 2.3.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Three Mile 
Island site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-37- 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



< 

UJ 

>- 
a: 

UJ 

a. 



< 
o 

UJ 
Ul 
CJ 

Ul 



O 

>- 



m 
< 
m 

o 
rt- 



-1 
10 



-2 
10 



-3 

10 



-4 
10 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 





HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 


-\ 

^ \ 
\ 






— (N (N( 

o 



ro •* in ID 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC* ♦Z 



THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



Figure 2.3.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the Three Mile Island site. 



-38- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



-2 
10 

< 

>- 

1 .1 o 

o. 10 



< 

Lj -4 
u 10 



H -5 
-J 10 

CD 
< 
CD 
O 

q: 
a. 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




i ACCELERATION CM/5EC»»2 



THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



Figure 2.3.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Three Mile Island 
site. 



-39- 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 









o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



500.. 1000., 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



I o 




c4 hO ■<* Lntof^^aan 
To 



c-i K) •* incoh^occn 



^i^a^a^B 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



o 



Figure 2.3.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Three Mile Island 
site. 



-40- 



o 

to 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 




I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



Figure 2.3.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Three Mile Island site. Plot 
symbols are given in Table 2.0 



-41- 



■jfOi/aoaabtiiiv'. 



o 

LiJ 






o 
o 



Ul 

> 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



Figure 2.3.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Three 
Mile Island site. 



-42- 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES =^ 15., 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



<_> 
ui 
in 
■\ 

O 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




I o 



l-O -^ ID iDC^^OOTl 



r-j to ■* iD(OhNoccr> 



I O 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



o 



Figure 2.3.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Three Mile Island 
site. 



-43- 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



u 

LU 
C/l 
\ 

O 

>- 



o 
o 




PERIOD (SEC) o 

THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



Figure 2.3.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Three Mile Island 
site. 



-44- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



10 



10 



o 

UJ 



2 
o 



u 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



CM 
I O 




RETURN PERIODS 



CURVE 
CURVE 
CURVE 
CURVE 2 = 
CURVE 1 = 



5 ^ 
4 = 

3 - 



10000 

5000 

2000 

1000 

500 



J. 



YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 



To 



>o -* loior^ooji 



PERIOD (SEC) o 



»o -^ IT) iDt^^axn 



THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



Figure 2.3.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Three Mile Island 
site. 



-45- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



UJ 



;5 



u 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



Shallow Soil 
Rock 




To 



c4 to 't trn£>rvaxr> 
o 



PERIOD (SEC) S 

THREE MILE ISLAND S-2 



""o 



Figure 2.3.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Three Mile Island site. 



-46- 



2.4 Browns Ferry 

The location of the Browns Ferry site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol 
"4". Most of the structures at the Browns Ferry site are founded on rock. 
The hazard results for the rock case are given in Section 2.2 of Vol. III. In 
this section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on 
shallow soil. The soil at the Browns Ferry site was considered to be best 
represented by our Sand-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. 
Table 2.4.1 and Figs. 2.4.1 to 2.4.11 give the basic results most applicable 
to the structures founded on shallow soil at the Browns Ferry site. 

In Section 2.2 of Vol. Ill we pointed out that for the rock case, distant 
zones made significant contribution to the BEHC for PGA at the Browns Ferry 
site. Thus as noted in Section 2.1, we find some significant differences 
between Table 2.4.1 and Table 2.2.1 of Vol. III. For the Sand-1 case, zones 
nearby the Browns Ferry site became more important. 

If Fig. 2.4.2 is compared to Fig. 2.2.2 of Vol. Ill we see that, for example, 
the BEHC for S-Expert 11 has moved upwards relative to the other BEHCs per 
S-Expert. 

We see from Fig. 2.4.4 that the median CPHC for the shallow soil case is much 
higher than the median CPHC for the rock case, however, there is relatively 
little difference between the 85th percentile CPHCs for the two cases. 

The amplification of the PGA and the short period end of the spectra by the 
shallow soil is higher, as discussed in Section 3, than would might be 
expected based on the sensitivity results presented in Section 2.2 of Vol. VI. 



-47- 



UJ 



CM 



oe 

UJ 

Q.N 
X I 
IU(0 
I 

w>- 

UJUJ 
Q.li. 

</>(/) 
UJZ 

zz 

DO 

no: 

ZQ£ 

<D 
h-U. 
Q£ 

D 
0. 



o 

E 



I 
Q 

Z 



>- 
O 

o 
111 

I- 
<c 
o 



CO 



lU 



<0 



3 

oa 

M 

I-O 
ZO 

O • 



O 

^{Q. 

QX 
ZO 

X 

u 

XH 

< 
o 

(L 

UJ 

X 



z 



z 
o 

M 

H 
V) 

D 

o 

Oin 
ZN 



30 

M<t 

0£O 

h-fl. 

Z 

C32 

UD 

UJI- 

z<t 

D 
N 



l-UJ 
(OZ 
CO 
XN 



Ol • 

xz 

I 3 
(OZ 



ID 


o 


CM 


K) 


Ov 


ro 




r- 


o 


Os 


^ 


•- 


lO 


•- 






»- 


M 




N 


r- 




lUro 


UIO 


UJr^ 


UJO 


UIO 


Ulf- 


UJO 


UIO 


II T- 


UJ.- 


UJO 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




z 


z 


o 


o 


D 


o 


D 


o 


o 


D 


N 


D 


o 


N 


N 

z 

D 


N 

Z 
O 


N 


N 

Z 
D 


N 


N 


N 

OO 


O 


N 


N 


o 


N 


N 


ro 


N 


r> 




N 


^^ 


V 


OO 


T— • 


• 


• 


r" • 


• 


^ • 


in • 


• 


r* • 


r- • 


• 


to 


•o 


•r^ 


T- 


•^ 


^ 


o 


N 


ro 


SO 


OS 


Ul 


Q. 


0. 


Ul 


Q. 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


UJr- 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


D 


D 


o 


o 


D 


D 


o 


o 


D 


o 


D 


N 


O 


o 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 

<r 


N 


N 


N 


• 


!>. • 


K) • 


OO • 


r- • 


OO • 


• 


N • 


so • 


so • 


• 


*(SI 


Nr- 


1-00 


^ 


^ r' 


1-0 


r^-a- 


r-ro 


ro 


>-r>. 


OS 


r_ 


ro 








f» 


ir 


^ 






inro 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


f— 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 




D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 
II 
^in 


N 


N 


O 


fO 


00 Ov 


'T 


VOO 


lAt^ 


Mm 


v£ 


M(M 


in so 


in,- 


OS CO 


r-vX) 


|/^co 


Ov 


f-0> 


r-OO 


SO in 


»-co 


r-Os 


f-OO 


V 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


N 


N 


N 

Z 
D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 
ro 


N 

Ul 

Z 


N 


N 


m 


o 


N 


\ri 


^ 


ro 


o 


r- 


D 


OS 


■«• 


»- 


M 






r- 


•- 


>- 




N 


v— 




UJN 


Ulf- 


Q.^ 


UJi-^ 


Ul(vj 


uitn 


UIO 


UIN 


II m 


UJrO 


UJN 


Z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 




Zr- 


Z 


o 


o 


D 


o 


o 


D 


o 


D 


N 


D 


o 


N 


N 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 

00 


O 


N 


N 


o 


o 


N 


ro 


OS 


OO 




CM 


^ 


V 




^ • 


ro • 


^- • 


• 


• 


^ • 


in • 


• 


r- • 


r» • 


• 


o 


K) 


o 


^ 


V 


TT 


N 


r^ 


^ 


ro 


in* 


UJ.- 


UJ 


Ul.- 


Ul 


Ul 


UJr- 


UJ 


Ulr- 


Uir- 


UJr- 


r-r- 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 




D 


o 


D 


D 


o 


o 


D 


D 


o 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 
II 

0> • 


N 


N 


O 


. 


r«. • 


ro . 


eo • 




r>^ • 


, 


so • 


m • 


OO • 


*N 


Mr- 


r-0\ 


OO 


t-ro 


.-OS 


r^o 


i-r>. 


ro 


.-00 


CO 


to 


to 


r* 




fmm 


r- 


ro 


ro 


(SI 


N 


ro 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


o 


D 


O 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


^ 


eofO 


r* 


*r^ 


ino 


MOn 


r^ 


PJro 


Nin 


soro 


mm 


OMn 


r-sO 


u\\o 


00 


T-eo 


f-U\ 


vfivO 


r-V 


f-m 


.-ro 


V 


u 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


z 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


o 


o 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


•• •• 


•• •• 


•• •• 


.. .. 


•• •• 


.. .. 


.• .• 


.. .. 


•• •• 


.. .. 




O • 


Q • 


Q • 


a ■ 


a • 


Q • 


Q • 


a • 


Q • 


Q • 


O • 


•Hh- 


Ml- 


Ml- 


t-iH 


Mh- 


Ml- 


t-th- 


Ml- 


MH 


MH 


r-tl- 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


UIO 


UJO 


UJD 


UJD 


UJD 


UIO 


UJO 


UID 


UIO 


UJD 


UIO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


o . 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


N>? 


N^; 


D 


N^; 


D 


N>< 


N^: 


N^< 


N>« 


II 


N.X 


in 


1^ 


N 


ro 


N 


N 




ON 


N 






T— 


M 


. 


T— 


^ 


'- 


r^ 


•" 


•" 


V 


m 


UJ 


Ul 


o. 


Ul 


a. 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


f— 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


N 


N 


N 


o 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 


- 


N 


lO 


TT 


lA 


s« 


r^ 


o 


r- 


N 


ro 



-48- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



10 



-7 
10 



I ~ 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




J. 



Urn 



O 

+ 



t ir> ID rv 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC'*2 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Browns Ferry site. 



-49- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISM I CITY EXPERTS 



< 

m 
o 
a: 



10 



10 



< 



LJ O 

Q- 10 



< 



O 10 
X 



O 

>- 



-5 

10 



10 



-7 
10 




O 

+ 



•^ in ID 1^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC* "2 



BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Browns Ferry 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-50- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES ^ 15., 50. AND 85. 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



10 



-2 
10 

a: 

< 
ui 

>- 

Lij O 
OL 10 



< 

uj -4 
o 10 

X 



o 

>- 



m 

< 

CD 
O 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




in ID 



UI ACCELERATION CM/SEC**2 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the Browns Ferry site. 



-51- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



-1 
10 



• Shallow Soil 
- Rock 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC* »2 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Browns Ferry 
site. 



-52- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



500.. 1000.. 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
5 BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



o 

Ul 



o 



o 
o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Browns Ferry site. 



-53- 



-.onHHsnrd^CO' 



o 



2 



o 
o 



Ul 

> 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 




CN 

I o 



fo ^ in i£)r--occr> 

To 



m -* inu5rvoocr> 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Browns Ferry site. Plot symbols 
are given in Table 2.0 



-54- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES ^ 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



o 

CO 



2 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




CM 

I O 



hO -"t iT) i£)|-^axr> 



r^ ro ■* intDrvooo) 



c-t K) •<* in iDr-^ooT) 



I O 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Browns 
Ferry site. 



-55- 



o 

01 



2 



o 
o 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES ^ 15.. 50. AND 85. 




K> -^ in (or^oQj) 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Browns Ferry site. 



-56- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



o 

UJ 



3 



o 
o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Browns Ferry site. 



-57- 



o 

UJ 






u 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



I o 



■^^^^^T 




To 



RETURN PERIODS 
CURVE 5 = 10000 
CURVE 4 = 
CURVE 3 = 
CURVE 2 = 
CURVE 1 = 



5000 

2000 

1000 

500 



r-i ro -* LOtDhJXXn 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 



YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 



o 



BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Browns Ferry site. 



-58- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGPATION IS 5.0 
10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES - 15.. 50. AND 85. 



o 
to 



o 
o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

BROWNS FERRY S-2 



Figure 2.4.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Browns Ferry site. 



-59- 



2.5 Catawba 

The location of the Catawba site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol 
"5". Most of the structures at the Catawba site are founded on rock. The 
hazard results for the rock case are given in Section 2.9 of Vol. III. In 
this section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on 
shallow soil. The soil at the Catawba site was considered to be best 
represented by our Sand-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. 
Table 2.5.1 and Figs. 2.5.1 to 2.5.11 give the basic results most applicable 
to the structures founded on shallow soil at the Catawba site. 



For the rock case distant zones 
site than they are at say the Su 
the Browns Ferry site. Thus we 
compared to Table 2.5.1 in Vol. 
the percent contribution to the 
higher for the shallow soil case 
Vol. III. In addition we see, a 
the amplification of the PGA bet 
than would be expected from the 



are somewhat 
squehanna si 
see a number 
III. Typica 
BEHC for PGA 
as compared 
s discussed 
ween the sha 
sensitivity 



more important at the Catawba 
te, but less important than at say 

of changes in Table 2.5.1 as 
lly, the change observed is that 

from the zones near the site are 

to the rock case given in 
in Section 3, from Fig. 2.5.4 that 
How soil and rock cases is larger 
results present in Vol. VI. 



-60- 



z 
o 






OS 

Ui 

a. 

X 

u 
I 
M 

N 
Q£ I 

(L 
< 

z< 

N< 
U 

ZDf 

<o 

HU. 
D£ 

D 
CL 



D 



I 






> 

D 
O 
UI 

< 



V) 



Ui 



i/i 



3 

(Q 
M 

K^ 
HO 
ZO 
D>« 
O • 
o 

D<t 
O 

^;a. 

QX 

ZO 

X 

u 

x»- 

IlKt 
A 

< 

o 
u 

X 

•- 






z 
o 



w 



D 

o 

0>A 
zrsi 



so 

M<t 

ceo 
\-a. 
z 
cz 

OD 

(0 

UJI- 

z<t 

o 

N 



iA'Z 
OD 
IN 



Q. • 

I 3 
</)Z 





f^ 


N 


^ 


,_ 






1— 


V* 


O 


OO 


«- 1 


(SI 1 






r— 1 


«« 1 


r^ < 






(SI 1 




UJO 


UJN 1 


OlO I 


UJO 1 


UJO 


UJO 1 


UJr- 1 


mo 1 


UJO 1 


UJlO 1 


UJ.- 


Z 1 


Z 1 


:c 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


o 


N 1 


N 1 


O 1 


N 


N 1 


N 1 

Z i 
D 1 


N 1 


N 1 
II 1 


N 1 

UI 
Z 1 


N 1 

<t 1 


N 




eo 1 




r- 1 


U\ 


N 1 




OS 1 


O 1 


N1 1 




OS . 1 




\t\ • 1 


r* * 1 


r" * 


• 1 


so • 1 


^ * 1 


N • 1 


(SI • 1 


• 




""cj 1 


O 1 


,— 


r- 1 


•O 1 


K> 1 


O 1 


(SI 1 


ON 1 


U^CM 


UJ*" 1 


UJ 1 


U) 1 


UJ 


UI 1 


a. 1 


UI 1 


UI 1 


II 1 


UJ 1 


r- 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


Z 


£ 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 




Z 1 




O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


N 1 


O 1 


N 


N 


N I 


N 1 


N 


N 1 


O 1 


N I 


N 1 

0) 


O t 


N 1 


O 


. 


O • 1 


• 


O • 1 


Ov • 1 


r- • 


O • 1 


■T ' I 


eo • 


(SI • 1 


OS . 


NN 1 


tO(M 1 


Ov(SI 


r-m 


N* 


i-(SI 1 


i-(SJ 


r- 


(SI 


(Sli- 


00 




M 1 




r- 


V 1 




^ 




^ 


(Sl 




lU 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


z 


Z 1 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 


o 


o 


D 


o 


D 


o 


o 


N 1 


N 


N 1 


N 


N 


N 1 


N 


N 
00 • 


N 


N 


N 


SA 1 


Os^ 


CO 1 


OS* 


ON 


Moo 


V 


(SIGN 


r>.so 


<-h- 


ON 


roov 


(SJvO 


r».ON 


eo 


r-in 


t-Ov 


eoeo 


ON 


eo 


NsO 


eo 


LU 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


Ui 


r- 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




o 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


o 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 

<I 


O 




«0 


►0 


r- 


in 


rv 




OO 


^- 


M 


m 


•V 




»— 


»- 


r- 


r- 


r^ 


(SJ 


r- 


(SI 




tUM 


uJr«. 


UJf- 


UJIO 


UINO 


UIO 


UJOO 


UJIO 


UJO 


UloO 


UlCsJ 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Zr- 


z 


o 


D 


D 


o 


o 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 

z 
o 


N 


N 
m 


N 


N 


N 




rv 




* 


^ 


N 




r- 


v« 


O 


eo 


Ov . 


CM • 


\t\ . 


• 


^- • 




sfi • 


• 


• 


(SI • 


• 


in 


eo 


oo 


V 


^ 


•r— 


^ 


in 


K) 


in 


lO 


UI 


UI 


UI 


UI 


UJ 


0- 


Ulr- 


UJ 


UJ 


UI(SI 


Ulr- 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z: 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


o 


D 


D 


o 


D 


o 


D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


. 


ON • 


. 


OS • 


o • 


r- • 


o • 


V • 


eo • 


r- • 


ON • 


MTT 


(MOO 


O^tO 


hO 


.-Ift 


t-M 


r-n 


r> 


r^ 


(SJSO 


<»• 


^- 


K) 


f. 


V 


ro 


r- 


(SI 




r- 


(SI 


(SI 


Ul 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 
eo • 


N 


N 


N 


\r\ 


OsO 


r». 


Of>. 


<^^~ 


MvO 


^ 


N^ 


r^os 


(sir«- 


ON 


Mt^ 


rov 


r>-r>- 


r-'T 


lA 


^eo 


eom 


eo 


r^ 


(SI(SJ 


in 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


r— 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




D 


D 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 


Q • 


• • •• 


q'. 


Q • 


q" 


Q • 


Q • 


Q . 


Q • 


Q • 


a • 


Ml- 


wl- 


M|- 


Mh- 


MH 


Ml- 


>H|- 


Mt- 


HH 


M|- 


•Hl- 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


UIC 


UJO 


UJO 


UJO 


UID 


UJO 


UJO 


UJO 


UJO 


1 UJO 


UJO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


1 ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


ZO 


1 ZO 


ZO 


D 


o 


o 


o 


1 O 


1 D 


D 


o 


o 


1 o 


1 D 


N^; 


1 N^? 


N.X 


N5< 


1 N^; 


1 N^< 


N>< 


n.n: 
1 oo 


NK 


1 N^! 


1 N>< 




o> 




o<. 


o 


M 




1 N 


!>• 


1 p- 




K) 


1 N 


r>. 




r- 


1 r— 


OO 






1 N 


1 r»- 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 


1 UI 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 


UI 


1 ^* 


z 


1 z 


1 z 


t Z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 




D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 o 


1 O 


1 D 


1 o 


1 o 


1 D 


N 


N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 O 


- 


1 (SI 


1 r^ 


^ 


1 in 


1 V* 


1 r»- 


1 o 


1 r- 


1 (SI 
1 ^• 


1 ro 



-61- 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 






a: 
< 



Ul 
Q. 



O 

< 






CD 
< 

CD 
O 
CL- 



-1 
10 



-2 

10 



-3 
10 



10 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



O 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




to "* ID U3 P^ 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC*"'2 



CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Catawba site. 



-62- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISMIC I TY EXPERTS 



a: 

< 



UJ 
Q. 



u 



2 



o 

X 



(- 



oa 
< 

CQ 

o 
a: 



10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



-4 
10 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




O 

+ 
UJ 



t vf) lO r^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC* *2 



CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Catawba 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-63- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 






10 



-2 
10 

< 

UJ 

>- 

Q- 10 



< 

o 

Ul '* 

o 10 

X 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



O 



ffi 
< 

m 
o 
o: 
a. 



-5 
10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




O 

+ 
UJ 



ACCELERATION CM/SEC* *2 

CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the Catawba site. 



-64- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES ^ 1 5 . . 50. AND 85. 



oe. 

< 

>- 

q: 

ui 

0. 



UJ 

a 

z 

2 



o 

X 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



10 



>- 

!l -5 

-J 10 

CD 

< 

m 
o 
q: 

Ql 

-6 

10 



-7 
10 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC* ♦£ 

CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Catawba site. 



-65- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



2 
o 



o 
o 



10 



500.. 1000., 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
3 BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



10 



10 



10 



-1 

10 




CM 

I o 



o "* m i£>r-~«xr> 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Catawba site. 



-66- 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



o 

ui 






o 
o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 
CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Catawba site. Plot symbols are 
given in Table 2.0 



-67- 



o 

UJ 



o 

>- 



o 
o 



UJ 

> 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the 
Catawba site. 



-68- 



o 

Ul 



2 



o 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Catawba site. 



-69- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000G.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



J : 



o 

o 



o 
o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CATAWBA S-2 



Figure 2.5.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Catawba site. 



-70- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



10 



10 



o 

Ul 

in 

> 1 
^ 10 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



-1 
10 



ex 
I o 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 

I I I I 




»o -^ in tohoco) 



I o 



RETURN PERIODS 



CURVE 
CURVE 
CURVE 
CURVE 



CURVE 1 = 



10000 

5000 

2000 

1000 

500 



YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 



K) •* Uj iOI^~CCXj- 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CATAWBA S-2 



rO ■<* miOhvOOO^ 



Figure 2.5.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Catawba site. 



-71- 



o 

Ul 
\ 

O 



o 
o 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



I o 



Shallow Soil 
Rock 




i^BKki^Hb^^ 



CI r^ -sj- m tor-vooj) 



I o 



C-4 ro Tt mcDr^cccn 

PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CATAWBA S-2 






Figure 2.5.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Catawba site. 



-72- 



2.6 Farley 

The location of the Farley site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol "6". 
Most of the structures at the Farley site are founded on rock. The hazard 
results for the rock case are given in Section 2.6 of Vol. III. In this 
section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on shallow 
soil. The soil at the Farley site was considered to be best represented by 
our Sand-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. Table 2.6.1 and 
Figs. 2.6.1 to 2.6.11 give the basic results most applicable to the structures 
founded on shallow soil at the Farley site. 

As discussed in Section 2.6 of Vol. Ill, distant zones make a significant 
contribution to the BEHC for PGA for the rock case. Thus there are 
significant differences between Table 2.6.1 for the shallow soil case and 
Table 2.6.1 of Vol. Ill for the rock case for the Farley site because, the 
shallow soil amplifies the ground motion from smaller nearby earthquakes 
making the nearby zones more important. The difference between the median 
CPHCs for the rock and shallow soil cases shown in Fig. 2.6.4 are somewhat 
larger than might be expected from the sensitivity results present in Vol. VI, 
however, it is much less than the difference between medians observed at the 
Browns Ferry site in Fig. 2.4.4. The reasons for this are discussed in 
Section 3. 



-73- 



Ul 

o 

< 
a. 



V. 



n 



W 



lU 
0. 
X 
UJ 
I 
<0 

DfN 
LU I 
Q.(/) 

W>- 

UJUJ 
Z-l 

do: 

N<r 

u. 

t- 

zo: 
«xo 
h-ii. 

D£ 

D 
0. 

E 






I 

Q 
Z 



>- 
DC 
D 

O 
UJ 

I- 
< 



D 

to 



UJ 



</) 



3 
CQ 
M 

\-o 

ZO 

O • 

o 

IJ.W 

o 

QX 
ZO 

X 

o 

XI- 
UJ<I 
CQ 

<z 
o 

Q. 

UJ 

X 



D 



O 



o 

M 



o 
o 

OiA 
zcsi 



so 

so*-' 

Q£0 
HQ. 

z 

DZ 

UD 

-J 

UJH 

z<c 

D 

N 



HUJ 
(OZ 

oo 

IN 



Q. • 

<nz 



^. >> OOr«. i-IA0>9« 

IN rN lift I r- I r- I r- I r>. I I I r- I 

I UJO I UIO I UJO I UJ>- I UIO I UIO I UJO I UJO I UJO I UJf^ I UJf-i 
I Z I Z I Z 1 Z I Zr- I Z I Z I Z I Z I Z I Z 
ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID 
IN IN IN IN IN IN IN iN iN iN iN 

i flQ I I I 

I lO IK) I0> ION lOO lO IV Ir- IIA I 

IK)'IK)-if->l •■ .|,-.|^.| 'Ii-'IN^I 

'..°'..^' °' **^' •"' •"' '^' O' oi •«• ift^o 
I UJ I Uli- I UJ I UJ I UJr- I Ul I Ul I UJ I UJ I UJf- I r- 
IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ I 
ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID IN 
IN IN IN IN IN IN IN iN iN iN lO 

I I IZ I I I ! I luj I ! 

I I I p I I I I II I eo I Z I < I 

I •ieo>iN-ii/«'iin>ito*i •iN-iD'irO'liA* 

I OVSO I r-r- I t- I (SJCO I r-N I ?-»0 I NO I O I NO I Nf^ I N 
I IVI'li-INlNlVl I |(Mi^ 

lUI lUJ IQ. lUJ lUJ lUJ lUI lUI I II lUI lUI 
IZ IZ IS IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ I IZ IZ 

ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID IN ID ID 
N IN lO IN IN IN IN IN lO iN iN 

I Z I I I I Z I I II ! I I 

•ID- D . I .1 .1 .1 .1 

V I Nxo I <9v I voo I ooiri I N<« I r>« i <^o i ooo i irtix. i r- 
T-o> I V I ooov I r> I mi r^ i som i r-o i o i ^u\ i oo 

Ul Id. lUJ lUJ lUJ IQ. lUI I Uj'~ I Uj"" I UJ t t- 

Z IS IZ IZ IZ i£ IZ IZ IZ IZ I 

D ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID IN 

N lO IN IN IN lU IN IN IN IN lU 

UJ I I 

I I I I I I I < I Z I I 

o if>v ihT) leo leo if>. I IN ID iifl lov 

>- IN If- I I Ir- ir*. It- IN IN I 

UIN I UN I UJKO I UJv« I UJf- I UJin I UIN I UIKO I II r- I UJfv! I UJf-' 
Z IZ IZ IZ iZr-lZ IZ IZ I iZf-lZt- 

D ID ID ID ID ID ID ID IN ID lO 
N IN IN IN IN IN IN iN lU iN iN 

I Z I I I 

I D I I I I I I SQ I I t 

■ N I lo nn leo lo itt ir^ iia ioo 

K)*l "llA-lr-'lf— -l^'l^*! *| •|^a| • 

rOl'v«l VI Ol Nl vol Ol K)l r-l Oni f- 
Ul I CLf- I UJ I UJf- I UJN I UJ I UJf- I UJ I UJ I Ulr- I Ult- 
2 IH 12 IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ 
D ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID 
N lO IN IN IN IN IN IN iN iN iN 

I I Z I I I Z I I I I ! 

I I D I I t D I II I CO I I I 

•IO<lN-IOv-IOv>lN-l •IN'lr-'ia\.|l«. 

ovo I K)v« I eo I o I so I tn I n>« i eo i r-r- I t-in i >o 
. N I hi I • I f- I N I -ro I t- I I I N I ro 

Ul lUJ 10. lUJ lUJ IQ. lUI lUI lUI lUJ lUJ 
Z IZ IS IZ IZ l£ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ 
D ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID 
N IN lO IN IN iO IN IN iN iN iN 

I I I I I I I II I I i 

I 'I -I 'I 'I 'I • I < . I 

N I eoiA I <r- I VOO I OvO I rOr- I ^ I OvV I COnO I K)eO I K) 

»-r«. I f-v I oooo I V* I ^M I r-m I \«r«> • f-co i ov i NN i v 

I I I I I I I I I I so 

UJ lUI lUJ lUI lUJ lUJ lUJ lUI lUJ lUI 1^ 

Z IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ IZ I 

O ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID iN 

N IN IN IN IN IN IN iN iN iN lO i 

Q -iQ -IQ .|Q -iQ .iQ .|Q .|Q .|Q .|Q .|Q*'. I 
•-•I- I MH I Ml- I Ml- I Ml- I Ml- I MH I Ml- I M|- I Mh- I Ml- I 

Zl Zl Zl Zl Zl Zl Zl Zl Zl Zl Zl 
UID I UID I UJD I UID I UID I UID I UIO I UJO I UID I UID I UIO I 
20 I ZO I 20 I ZO I ZO I ZO I ZO l ZO l ZO l ZO l ZO I 
D ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID I 
NJ^ I N.V I N>< I NX I N>< I N^f I NX i NX i NX I NX I NX I 

I D I I I I D I II I I I I I 

IN i< iirt leo iN i i(h leo ivo i i 

»-i leoiNl I iNlf-i INI I 

1*1 I I 1*1 I I I I so I 

Ul IQ. lUI lUI lUI IQ. lUI lUI lUI lUJ Ir- I 

Z IS IZ IZ IZ IS IZ IZ IZ IZ I I 

D ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID IN I 

N IO IN IN IN lO IN IN iN iN lO i 

r- IN ItO IV lift ISO ir>* IO Ir- IN IhO I 
I I I I i I Ir-lr-l^lf—l 



-74- 



■■«^'jd<is»i^''A' 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



-1 
10 



-2 
10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



< 



uj ""3 
Q- 10 



< 
o 

UJ -4 
o 10 



o 

>- 



CD 
< 

m 
O 

cc 
a. 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




X 



>- CN tM 



"» IT) (£> r^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC'"2 

FARLEY S-2 



Figure 2.6.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Farley site. 



-75- 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISM I CITY EXPERTS 



w 



< 

111 

>- 

cc 

Ul 



O 

z 
< 

UJ 
Ul 

o 



O 



CD 
< 

CD 
O 

or 



10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



-4 
10 



-5 
10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




»- CN CM 



O 

+ 



•» in lo 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC'*2 



FARLEY S-2 



Figure 2.6.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Farley 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-76- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



i\ 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



< 

>- 
cr 

UJ 
CL 



< 



10 



-2 
10 



-3 

10 



o 10 



O 

>- 

L -5 

-J 10 

m 
< 

m 
o 
a: 
a. 



-6 
10 



-7 

10 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC** 2 

FARLEY S-2 



Figure 2.6.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and 6- 
Experts' input for the Farley site. 



-77- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



t? 



10 



-2 
10 

< 
ui 

>- 

UJ -J 

Q- 10 



o 
z 
< 

UJ ^ 

o 10 

X 

UI 

Li. 
O 

>- 



m 
< 

CD 
O 

q: 



10 



-6 
10 



10 




o 

+ 

LxJ 



cs| K> ■* m UD 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC»»2 



FARLEY S-2 



Figure 2.6.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Farley site. 



-78- 



. V.'JWVX'SC.-/'.. ■ 



HHifcii 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



500.. 1000.. 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



o 

UJ 



2 
o 



o 
o 




I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

FARLEY S-2 



Figure 2.6.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Farley site. 



-79- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



10 



o 

UJ 
CO 

o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




CM 

I o 



K) •>* in lor^flcw 



lo PERIOD (SEC) 2 

FARLEY S-2 



Figure 2.6.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all 6-Experts for the Farley site. Plot symbols are 
given in Table 2.0 



-80- 



wi*>»iv ?K>vi:- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



u 



3 



(J 
o 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



CM 

I o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 
FARLEY S-2 






Figure 2.6.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Farley 
site. 



-81- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

ui 
to 



2 



u 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




hO ""t m tOI^-JKIT) 



I o 



I o PERIOD (SEC) 2 

FARLEY S-2 



Figure 2.6.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Farley site. 



-82- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000.-YEAP RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



o 

LiJ 



2 
o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



CM 

1 o 




I o PERIOD (SEC) 2 

FARLEY S-2 



Figure 2.6.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Farley site. 



-83- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



o 

a 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



CM 

I O 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



^^^^••^^•*^ 




To 



RETURN PERIODS 
CURVE 5 = 10000 
CURVE 4 = 5000 
CURVE S - 2000 
CURVE 2 = 1000 
CURVE 1 = 500 
I I I I 



YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 



K) -* miorvoDa^ 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

FARLEY S-2 



mim 



""o 



Figure 2.6.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Farley site. 



-84- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES ^ 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



o 

UJ 

I/) 

\ 

o 



o 
o 



LxJ 

> 



10 



10 



10 



10 



I I M 



-^^— F^^'^H" 



Shallow Soil 
Rock 




To 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

FARLEY S-2 



o 



Figure 2.6.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Farley site. 



-85- 



:oc>i4HHMaoy 



2.7 North Anna 

The location of the North Anna site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol 
"7". Most of the structures at the North Anna site are founded on rock. The 
hazard results for the rock case are given in Section 2.9 of Vol. III. In 
this section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on 
shallow soil. The soil at the North Anna site was considered to be best 
represented by our Sand-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. 
Table 2.7.1 and Figs. 2.7.1 to 2.7.11 give the basic results most applicable 
to the structures founded on shallow soil at the North Anna site. 

We noted in Section 2.9 of Vol. Ill that for the rock case the zones nearby 
the sites contributed most to the hazard. Thus there are no significant 
changes between Table 2.7.1 and Table 2.9.1 of Vol. III. Thus, as might be 
expected, the differences in the CPHCs and CPUHS between the rock and Sand-1 
cases are similar to the differences found in Vol. VI. 



-86- 









K 




U 




Q. 




X 




UN 




van 




0£< 




LUZ 


i-H 


0.Z 


• 


<t 


r^ 


<n 


• 


UJZ 


CM 


ZH 




OOf 


IH 


NO 


d 


z 


s 


^c 


H 


<o 




HU. 




Of 



D 



I 
Q 






> 

D 
CD 
UJ 

(- 
<t 

u 



D 



UJ 



w 



z 
o 



3 
SQ 

M 

a:^ 

HO 

zo 

o • 

o 

0(X 

o 
^?o. 

ax 

zo 

X 

o 

XH 
UJC 

o 
tlJ 

X 



D 
I- 

>- 



<t 

u 



z 
o 

M 

i/i 

H 
10 

D 

O 
ZN 



DO 

M< 

0£O 

HQ. 

Z 

OS. 

UD 

<n 

UIH 
Z«I 

D 
N 



</1Z 
DD 
XN 



a. • 

I 3 
COZ 







D 










.— 










CO 


N 


o 


o 


T— 


O 




so 


t^ 


SO 


<SJ 1 


CM 1 




r- " 


r- ' 


r- 1 


•- ' 






r— 1 




LUO 1 


UJO 1 


DLO 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UJi- 1 


UJO 1 


UIO 


Z 1 


Z 1 


s: 1 


Z 1 


2 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 


N 1 


N 1 

Z • 
D 1 


O 1 


N 1 

Z 1 
D 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 
II 1 


N 1 


N 1 
<t 1 


N 




N 1 


<t 1 


N 1 


00 1 




OS 1 


OS 1 


OO 1 


to 1 


00 


T— • 1 




eo • 1 






so • 1 


(M • 1 


r- • 1 


• 1 


(SI • 1 


• 




•O 1 


O 1 


•O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


ro 1 


r- 1 


ro 1 


O 1 


o 


UJ 1 


a. 1 


UJ 1 


a. 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 


Z 1 


■s: 1 


Z 1 


£ 1 


Z 1 


2 t 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


o 


N 1 


U 1 


N 1 


O 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 

m 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 


. 1 


O • 1 


. 1 


CO • 1 


ON • 1 


ro • 1 


• 1 


• 1 


in • 1 


O • 1 


• 


*CSl 1 


NO.- 1 


IrtCM 1 


o> 1 


•- ] 


"-•- \ 


ps.00 1 


r— 1 


O 1 
r- 1 


(SIO 1 


in 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


^ 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 




D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


N 


N 1 


N r 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 

ta • 1 


N 1 


N 1 


O 


r»- 1 


rvoo 1 


OO 1 


p-r— 


i-Ov 1 


inos 1 


OS 1 


^OO 1 


rvin 1 


(SIO 1 


eo 


^O0^ 1 


MON 1 


^0a^ 1 


r-ON 


OS 1 


r-Os 1 


OSOO 1 


OS 1 


OO 1 


too 1 


OS 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 1 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 1 


UJ 


UJ*" 


r- 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 




O 1 


O 1 


D 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


N 


N 1 


N 1 

z 

D 


N 


N 


N i 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 
II 


N 1 

UJ 

Z 


N 


O 




N 




N 


OO 


1— 


o 


ON 


D 


M 


OS 


N 




ON 


^" 




•- 


T- 


>- 


N 


N 




UJi-^ 


Q-r- 


UJO 


UJV 


ujm 


UJM 


UJN 


UIt- 


II so 


UJr- 


UJr- 


z 


S 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 




Z 


Z 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


o 


o 


D 


N 


O 


o 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 


N 


N 




CO 


< 


o 


o 




ON 


00 


s« 


N 


eo 


r- • 


(SI • 


oc • 


1— • 


T- • 


sfi • 


N • 


N • 


• 


(VJ • 


• 


r» 


0^ 


r«1 


>« 


v« 


M 


e 


CM 


eo 


»~ 


r> 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJf- 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


o 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 
in 


N 


N 


N 


. 


o • 


. 


eo • 


Ov . 


»0 • 


• 


• 


in • 


e • 


• 


VO 


rOr- 


\t\t 


o 


^« 


f-v 


f>M 


e 


K) 


NN 


r<. 


N 


^ 




V 


r- 




N 


M 


N 




in 


UJ 


UJ 


\ii~ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


^ 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 




o 


D 


o 


o 


o 


c 


o 


D 


o 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 
n • 


N 


N 


U 


C«J 


?^eo 


N 


,-in 


.-OS 


tno 


\r> 


1 VSO 


t^r*- 


Nso 


in 


hor* 


(Slt>. 


■OK) 


1 .-^ 


1 so 


T-OS 


Ovvfi 


so 


m 


lOOs 


1 OO 

1 p> 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


1 UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


1 r- 


z 


z 


Z 


1 z 


1 Z 


z 


1 z 


1 z 


z 


1 Z 




o 


o 


o 


1 o 


1 O 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 N 


N 


1 N 


N 


N 


N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 o 


Q • 


Q • 


Q "• 


1 Q • 


1 Q • 


q" 


q" 


1 •• •• 

1 Q • 


Q • 


q" 


1 Q • 


MH 


1 Ml- 


1 Mh- 


1 Mt- 


1 MH 


1 Mt- 


1 i-t(- 


1 MK 


1 MK 


1 MH 


1 Ml- 


z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UIO 


zo 


1 ZO 


1 zo 


1 zo 


1 ZO 


1 ZO 


1 zo 


1 ZO 


1 ZO 


1 ZO 


1 zo 


D 


1 D 


1 o 


1 o 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 O 


1 o 


NK' 


1 N>; 


1 N>? 


1 N>< 


1 N^< 


1 Ni< 


1 NX 


1 N.X 
1 CQ 


1 N.^ 


1 N^? 


1 N^< 




1 r^ 




1 ,— 


1 r- 


1 m 




1 'J- 


1 r* 


1 (SI 




fO 


1 (M 


1 SO 


1 f— 




[ •" 


1 OS 






1 hO 


1 r». 


UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 T— 


z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 




o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 o 


1 o 


1 D 


1 o 


1 o 


1 N 


N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


IN 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 O 


- 


1 (M 


1 M 


1 V 


1 in 


1 v« 


1 r^ 


1 o 


1 r- 


1 N 

1 r- 


1 lO 



-87- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



10 





-2 


y 




10 


-\ 


q: 




,\ 


< 




', \ 


UI 

>- 






UI 


-3 


\ 


a. 


10 


- \ 


UI 






u 






z 






< 






Q 






UI 
UI 


-4 




u 


10 


- 


X 






UJ 






u. 






o 






•>- 






»- 


-5 




_l 


10 


- 


CD 






< 






m 






o 






ft: 






Q. 


-6 
10 





-7 
10 



I I 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




CN Csl 
O 

+ 



■* ID ID rv 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC*»2 

NORTH ANNA S-2 



Figure 2.7.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the North Anna site. 



-88- 






E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISMICITY EXPERTS 



tx. 

< 

>- 
u 

Q. 



o 
z 
< 



o 

X 



o 



CD 



10 



10 



-3 
10 



-4 

10 



-5 
10 



-6 

10 



-7 
10 




o 

+ 



■^ in to t^ 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC**2 



NORTH ANNA S-2 



Figure 2.7.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the North Anna 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-89- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



-1 
10 



-2 
10 

< 

UJ 

>- 

Ul -J 

CL 10 



o 
z 
< 

Ul ^ 

u 10 

X 



O 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



CD 
< 
ffi 

o 

O. 



-5 
10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC ^2 

NORTH ANNA S-2 



Figure 2.7.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the North Anna site. 



-90- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



-1 
10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



-2 
10 

< 
UJ 

>- 

Q- 10 



o 

z 
< 
o 

o 10 

X 



o 



< 

m 
o 
a: 

Ol 



-5 
10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




•- CN CM 



O 

+ 



ro -* in 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC** 2 



NORTH ANNA S-2 



Figure 2.7.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the North Anna site, 



-91- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



o 






o 
o 



500.. 1000.. 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
3 BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



I O 



■n- 



^■^^^■^■^^^ 




To 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

NORTH ANNA S-2 



y^^^n^ 



C4 K) -^t m iDh^ooji 
"o 



Figure 2.7.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the North Anna site, 



-92- 



H 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



10 



10 



2 
o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




I o 



To 



r-i K) ■* lOiDr-^OJi 



PERIOD (SEC) ° 

NORTH ANNA S-2 



C-l K) -^ iD lOr-JOJi 



Figure 2.7.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all 6-Experts for the North Anna site. Plot symbols are 
given in Table 2.0 



-93- 



2 
O 



O 

o 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES - 15.. 50. AND 85. 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

NORTH ANNA S-2 



Figure 2.7.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the North 
Anna site. 



-94- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

UJ 

(J 



UJ 

> 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




hO -^ in tor^^ocm 



I o 



I o 



(M >0 ■* incDh-^OO) 



PERIOD (SEC) ° 

NORTH ANNA S-2 



C-l K) ■>* iT) lDh-JK)CT» 



Figure 2.7.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the North Anna site. 



-95- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



1 



o 

UJ 

m 
\ 

o 



o 
o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 
NORTH ANNA S-2 



Figure 2.7.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentil 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the North Anna site. 



-96- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON S-SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



10 



10 



o 

Ui 






o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



CM 

I d) 




RETURN PERIODS 
CURVE 5 = 10000 
CURVE 4 = 5000 
CURVE 3 = 2000 
CURVE 2 = 1000 
CURVE 1 = 500 



YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 



To 



PERIOD (SEC)°o 
NORTH ANNA S-2 



ci K) -^ m i£>r-^cccr> 



Figure 2.7.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the North Anna site. 



-97- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



5! 



u 

Ul 

m 
\ 

O 

>- 



u 

Q 



10 



10 



10 



-1 

10 




I o 



To 



C-) rO -* iDlOf-COJ) 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

NORTH ANNA S-2 



C-l to •< lO U3t^aOCT> 



Figure 2.7.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the North Anna site. 



-98- 



2.8 Oconee 

The location of the Oconee site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol "8". 
Most of the structures at the Oconee site are founded on rock. The hazard 
results for the rock case are given in Section 2.10 of Vol. III. In this 
section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on shallow 
soil. The soil at the Oconee site was considered to be best represented by 
our Sand-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. Table 2.10.1 and 
Figs. 2.10.1 to 2.10.11 give the basic results most applicable to the 
structures founded on shallow soil at the Oconee site. 

If Table 2.8.1 is compared to Table 2.10.1 in Vol. Ill, we see a number of 
significant changes. For the rock case for a number of S-Experts, zones other 
than the host zone made a larger contribution to BEHC for PGA than the host 
zone. However, for the soil case, as could be expected based on our previous 
discussions, the host zone makes the largest contribution to the BEHC for 
PGA. We see from Figs. 2.8.4 and 2.8.11 that the differences in the CPHCs and 
CPUHS between the rock and Sand-1 cases are only slightly higher than would be 
expected based on the sensitivity results given in Section 2.2 of Vol. VI. 



-99- 






00 



w 

pp 

<: 

H 



UJ 

a. 

X 

LU 
I 

occsi 

UJ I 
O-V) 

(/)IU 
LULU 

zz 

OD 

NO 

O 

I- 

zoc 

<D 
t-U. 
D£ 

D 

a. 



00 
D 

z 



I 
Q 

Z 

<c 

V) 



>- 
o 

(9 
UJ 

< 



D 



UJ 



w 



z 

D 



3 

n 

M 
QJ^ 

KO 
ZO 

Os0 

o • 

o 
u.^ 
o<c 

o 

ax 

ZO 

X 

o 

uj<r 

<c 
o 

(L 
UJ 



D 
I- 

>- 



o 



z 
o 



<o 



V) 
D 

o 
zcj 



30 
«^ 

M<t 

0£O 
h-Q- 
Z 

02 
UO 
_i 
Vi 
UJK 

z< 

D 
N 



l-UJ 
(OZ 

oo 

XN 



Q. • 

xs 

I 3 
(OZ 

















A 




< 






OO 


to 


o 


\r\ 


r- 


o 


^ 


N4> 


to 


in 


(M 1 




T- 1 


»- 1 


•- ' 




^ 1 






N 1 




UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UIN 1 


UJIA 1 


UIO 1 


Ul^ 1 


UJO 1 


UJ.- 1 


Ui(SI 1 


UJr^ 1 


Z 1 


Zr- 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 
in 1 


N 1 

UJ 1 
Z 1 


N 1 


N 1 




a> 1 




^ 1 


ON 1 


ON 1 




f— 1 


O 1 


ON 1 


ON 1 


ON • 1 


N • 1 


ON • 1 


• 1 


• 1 


• 1 


v« • 1 


• 1 


N • 1 


r» • 1 


• 1 


v« 1 


(SI 1 


O 1 


(SI 1 


to 1 


O 1 


V 1 


O 1 


r- 1 


(SI 1 


^ 1 


UJ 1 


UJr- 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJf- 1 


UJ 1 


Ulr- 1 


Ul 1 


II 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 




Z 1 


Z 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


N 1 


O 1 


D 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 
II 1 

ON • 1 


U 1 


N 1 


N 1 




O • 1 




OO • 1 


O • 1 


O • 1 


.; 


00 • 1 


O • 1 


OO • 1 


rreo 1 


hom 1 


mo 1 


NvO 1 


T-V 1 


r-NO 1 


I^TT 1 


r-O 1 


in 1 


(SIvO 1 


rv 1 




^. 1 






r* 1 




(SI 1 






lO 1 


to 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ*" 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ t 


Ul 1 


Ul 1 


Ul 1 


Ul 1 


UJ 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z i 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N • 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N t 


N 1 


vO 1 


r^M t 


ON 1 


ONO> 1 


r-ON 1 


.-^ 1 


OO 1 


OO • 1 
(SIO 1 


rvTT 1 


.— ^ 1 


^ 1 


MOO 1 


(SIsO 1 


t^eo 1 


OO 1 


l-N* 1 


.-ON 1 


eoi« 1 


O 1 

r- 1 


<^ 1 


(SiNO 1 


N« 1 

rv 1 


UJ 1 


Ul 1 


Ul 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


Ul 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


^ 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 




O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D • 


D 1 


N 1 


N 1 

1 
1 
1 
1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N • 


N 1 
1 


N 1 
1 


N 1 


N 1 
Ul 

z 


N 1 


U 1 

1 
1 
1 
1 




OO 


to 


* 


Xtt 


OO 


o 


OO 


D 


to 


in 1 


(SI 


T— 


r- 




r- 




•- 


N 


N 


N 


1 
• 1 


UJIA 


UJvO 


• 
Ulr- 


UJO 


• 
UION 


UIO 


UJO 


Ulr- 


II in 


UJvO 


mm 1 


z 


Zi- 


z 


■Zr- 


z 


z 


Zf- 


z 




z 


Z 1 


o 


O 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 


o 


D 1 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


U 


N 


N 1 
1 




0^ 




o 


O 


ON 




N 


NO 


ON 


<^ 1 


Ov • 


(SI • 


ON • 


^— • 


^m • 


• 


NO • 


^ • 


♦ 


^ • 


• 1 


1 N 


OO 


V 


V 


00 


V 


N« 


1- 


ON 


V 


so 1 


1 UJr- 


UJi- 


Ul 


Ulr- 


Ulf- 


UJ 


UJ(SI 


Ul 


UJ 


UN 


1 Ul 1 


1 Z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


1 z 


1 z 


z 


1 z 


z 


1 Z 1 


1 D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


1 D 


1 D 


o 


1 D 


D 


1 D 1 


1 N 
1 

1 

1 


N 

1 
1 
1 o • 


N 

1 

1 
1 


N 
1 

1 
1 

1 OO • 


N 

1 
1 
1 

1 ON • 


1 N 
1 

1 

1 o • 


1 N 

1 
1 
1 
1 


N 
1 
1 
1 in 


1 N 

1 OO • 


1 N 

1 

1 


1 N i 
1 1 


1 *eo 


1 too 


1 irto 


1 NV 


1 ON 


1 T-(SI 


1 eoo 


1 ""(SI 


1 (SI 


1 (SIOO 


1 ON 1 


1 (SI 


1 to 


1 V 


1 (SI 


1 (SI 


1 r- 


1 to 




1 f— 


1 N 


1 r^N 1 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 »— 1 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 1 


1 D 


1 o 


1 O 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 N 1 


1 N 
1 


1 N 


1 N 
1 


1 N 


1 N 
1 


1 N 
1 


1 N 

1 


1 N 

1 

I 


1 N 


1 N 

1 


1 U 1 
i 1 
1 1 


I 

1 M 


1 
1 
1 fvin 


1 

1 to 


1 
1 
1 (^o 


1 

1 »-V 


1 

1 r-V 


1 

1 

1 to 


1 

1 OO • 
1 NvO 


1 r»-to 


1 

1 OON 


1 • 1 

1 OOO 1 


1 roiri 


1 (sJfO 


1 rvir^ 


1 \t\ 


1 1-^ 


1 .-OO 


1 rvfo 


1 ON 


1 !>• 


1 CSltO 
1 


1 NO 1 
1 1 


1 
1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 1 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 1 


1 o 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 o 


1 O 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 1 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


IN 


1 N 

1 


1 N 
1 


• N 


1 N 


1 N 1 
1 1 


! 


1 


1 


1 


1 •• •• 


1 •• •• 






1 •• •• 


1 .. .. 




1 a • 


1 a • 


1 a • 


1 Q- 


1 Q • 


1 a ' 


1 Q • 


1 Q • 


1 Q • 


1 Q • 


1 a • 1 


1 MH 


1 l-ll- 


1 Ml- 


1 Ml- 


1 MH 


1 t-H- 


1 t-H- 


1 MH 


1 MH 


i Ml- 


1 Mt- 1 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 1 


1 UID 


1 UID 


1 UID 


1 UJD 


1 UJD 


1 UJD 


1 UJD 


1 UID 


1 UJD 


1 UID 


1 UID 1 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


1 ZU 


I ZU 1 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 1 


1 N^; 

1 

1 


1 N>< 
1 

1 
1 


1 N^^ 

1 
1 
1 


1 N^: 


1 NX 

1 
1 
1 

1 


1 N^« 

1 


1 NX 

1 

1 


1 NX 

i 
1 OO 


1 NX 


1 NX 

1 
1 


1 NX 1 
1 1 
1 1 




1 1^ 


1 


1 ff» 




1 1— 


1 


1 N 


1 r^ 


1 r- 


1 1 


1 to 


1 (SI 


1 rv 


1 
1 


1 


1 1- 
1 


1 oo 


1 




1 (SI 


1 1 
1 r> 1 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 UJ 


1 f— i 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 1 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 o 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 N 1 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 
1 


1 N 

1 


• N 


1 N 
1 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 

1 


1 U 1 


1 


1 

1 N 
1 


1 to 

1 


1 
1 * 


1 in 


1 >« 


1 

1 r«- 


1 O 


1 r- 


1 

1 N 
1 r- 


1 1 
1 lO 1 
1 ^ i 



-100- 



m^mmmm/ 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



-1 
10 



-2 
10 

< 

UJ 

>- 

Q- 10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



o 

z 
< 



u 

X 

Ul 



o 



CD 
< 

CD 
O 

or 



-4 
10 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




O 

+ 



•»t in to t^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC»*2 



OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Oconee site. 



-101- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISMICITY EXPERTS 



.t- 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC**2 

OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Oconee 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-102- 



HAZARD rOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85, 



q: 

< 
ui 

>- 

oc 

a. 



< 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



HAZARD CURVES USING Al J. EXPERTS 

T 



uj -4 
o 10 



>- 

!l -5 

-J 10 

CD 

< 

m 
o 

q: 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




O 



ro ■>* in 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC 



OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the Oconee site. 



-103- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85, 



.:"t 
* 

n 



10 



-2 
10 

< 
ui 

UJ •-> 
Q. 10 

Ui 

o 

2 

< 



o 

X 



-4 
10 



!l -5 
-J 10 

CO 

< 

CD 
O 

q: 
Q. 

-6 
10 



-7 
10 




^ CS CM 
O 

+ 



ro "* IT) ^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC* » 2 



OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Oconee site. 



-104- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



o 



o 
o 



500.. 1000., 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
3 BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



^ 10 




I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Oconee site. 



-105- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



10 






o 

UJ 

o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




CM 

I O 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Oconee site. Plot symbols are 
given in Table 2.0 



-106- 



o 

Ul 



o 



o 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 




I o 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Oconee 
site. 



-107- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



' « 

1? 



o 

Ul 
CO 



o 

>- 



o 



10 



10 



10 



III! 



CM 

I O 




^ 



To 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

OCONEE S-2 



""o 



Figure 2.8.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Oconee site. 



-108- 



•JSc >? .-.VXv • 




HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

Ul 



3 
o 



o 
o 



> 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



I o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Oconee site. 



-109- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



10 



4 



10 



o 

ui 

CO 



2 
O 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



CM 

I o 




To 



RETURN PERIODS : 

CURVE 5 - 10000. YEARS 

CURVE 4 = 5000. YEARS 

CURVE 3 - 2000. YEARS 

CURVE 2 = 1000. YEARS 

CURVE 1 = 500. YEARS 



r^ K) ^ inu3r-^£Oj) 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

OCONEE S-2 



""o 



Figure 2.8.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Oconee site. 



-110- 






o 

UJ 



o 



o 
o 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR : 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

OCONEE S-2 



Figure 2.8.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Oconee site. 



-Ill- 






Id?' 

51 



2.9 Summer 

The location of the Summer site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol "9". 
Most of the structures at the Summer site are founded on rock. The hazard 
results for the rock case are given in Section 2.14 of Vol. II. In this 
section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on shallow 
soil. The soil at the Summer site was considered to be best represented by 
our Sand-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. Table 2.9.1 and 
Figs. 2.9.1 to 2.9.11 give the basic results most applicable to the structures 
founded on shallow soil at the Summer site. 

We see from Fig. 1.1 that the Summer site is closer to the Charleston region 
than the Oconee site. Thus, for the Summer site, the Charleston zones remain, 
for most S-Experts, the most important zones for both the rock and shallow 
soil cases as can be seen by comparing Table 2.9.1 to Table 2.14.1 of 
Vol. III. We see however, that in Table 2.9.1 the local zones become more 
significant than for the rock case. We see from Figs. 2.9.4 and 2.9.11 that 
the differences in the CPHCs and CPUHS between the rock and Sand-1 cases are 
higher than would be expected from the sensitivity results given in 
Section 2.2 of Vol. VI. 



-112- 



CM 

U 
►J 



0£ 

UJ 
Q. 
X 
UJ 
I 
in 

CkCN 
UJ t 
0.(0 

(00£ 

lilU 

zs: 

tn 
►- 

Z0£ 
CD 
Kli. 
Of 
D 
0. 



(0 

D 



I 

O 
Z 

a 

(O 



>- 
oe 

D 
O 
UJ 

H 



o 
(/O 



UJ 



(/) 



Of'-. 
KO 
ZO 

o • 

o 

o 

QX 

ZO 

X 

u 

XI- 
UJ< 

« 
o 

0. 

UJ 

X 

o 



z 
<x 
u 



o 

M 



<0 
D 

o 

Oin 
Z<M 



M<I 

z 

DZ 

uo 

_i 

UJI- 

zc 

D 
N 



HUJ 
(OZ 
DO 
IN 



(L • 

I 3 
(OZ 





D 










n 












N 




M 


f— 






o^ 


NO 


o 


in 


• 




1 CO 




' •- 


1 so 


1 M 


I .- 




1 M 




Ulf- 


1 0.0 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJi- 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


z 


1 £ 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


o 


1 o 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


N 


lU 


1 N 

1 z 
1 o 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 

1 z 
1 D 


1 N 


1 N 
1 in 


1 N 
1 UJ 

1 z 


1 N 


1 N 




1 eo 


1 N 


1 V 


1 u\ 


1 N 




1 r- 


1 D 


1 to 




^ • 


1 ^- • 


1 • 


1 


1 f— • 


1 


1 so • 


1 


1 N • 


1 M • 


1 • 


f 


1 f— 


1 -o 


1 o 


1 fm- 


1 -o 


1 ro 


1 rr 




1 O 


1 inM 


UJ 


1 UJ 


1 0. 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 0. 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 II 


1 UJ 




z 


1 z 


iz: 


1 z 


1 z 


1 £ 


1 Z 


1 z 




1 Z 




D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


N 


1 O 


1 N 


N 


N 


1 u 


1 N 


1 N 


1 O 


1 N 


1 N 

1 00 


O 


1 N 
1 <t 


1 O 


• 


OS • 


1 • 


1 OS • 


1 O • 


1 r- • 


1 o • 


1 M • 


1 CO • 


1 to • 


OS . 


^I0^ 


MO 


1 OsOn 


1 SO 


1 .-co 


1 r-O 


1 .-M 


1 o 


1 in 


1 MsO 






<«■ 




1 V 


) M 




1 to 


1 to 


to 


M 


1 to 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


1 UJ 


z 


z 


z 


1 z 


■ Z 


Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


z 


Z 


z 


o 


D 


o 


1 D 


1 D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


N 


N 


N 


1 N 


1 N 


N 


1 N 


N 
03 • 


N 


N 


N 


ON 


OOv 


r* 


OKO 


ONr- 


roo 


SO 


vin 


r^TT 


Mt 


CO 


t^CO 


K>m 


rvos 


r-ir\ 


rs. 


t-O 

r- 


CO SO 


so 


so 


Mr^ 


so 
1^ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 




z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




D 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 




1^ 




eo 


^ 


CO 




OO 


f^ 


O 


m 


Ov 


N 


OO 


M 


r- 




r>. 


N 


r- 


M 




UJIA 


UJcJ 


UIM 


UJO 


UJr^ 


UJO 


UJN 


UJ.- 


UJO 


UJ^ 


UJM 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


D 


o 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 
in 


N 


N 


N 




oo 




* 


in 


r^ 




r- 


so 


to 


CO 


T— • 


r- " 


\t\ • 


• 


T— • 


r* * 


so • 


• 


• 


M • 




m 


in 


M 


M 


N 


o 




M 


,_ 


in 


^ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Ui^ 


UJM 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


z 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 

<r 


N 


• 


OS • 


• 


OS • 


O • 


f^ • 


• 


V • 


OO • 


to • 


• 


MM 


MO 


oseo 


r*. 


r-r- 


r-M 


00 ro 


in 


o 


MOO 


V 


fO 


K> 


ro 


M 


M 




V 


N 


to 


to 


rvv 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 




Z 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




D 1 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 


N 1 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 
00 • 


N 


N 


o 


fx. 1 


oro 1 


eo 


Ot- 


OssO 1 


K>r». 


OTT 


MM 


r^co 


Mrs. 1 


OSO 


roir> 1 


KlvO 1 


rvir> 


1-r^ 


rv 1 


i-Os 


r-V 1 


in 


so 


M'J- 1 


in 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


z 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


D 1 


D 1 


D 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 


N 1 


N 1 


N 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 


Q "• 1 


q'. I 


q". I 


a • 


q" 


a • 1 


q"- 


q" 


a • 1 


Q • 1 


q". 


Ml- 1 


Ml- 1 


Ml- 1 


Ml- 1 


Ml- 1 


Ml- 1 


Ml- 1 


MH 1 


Ml- 1 


MH 1 


MK 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 


UID 1 


UJD 1 


UJD 1 


UJO 1 


UJD 1 


UJD 1 


lUD 1 


UJD 1 


UJD 1 


UJD 1 


UJD 


ZU 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 1 


ZO 


D 1 


D r 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 


NJ< 1 


N^< 1 


N^t 1 


N>< 1 


N>< 1 


N^« 1 


N^: 1 


NX 1 
BQ 1 


N^? 1 


N^: 1 


N^< 




OS 1 




OS 1 


O 1 


to 1 




V 1 


r>. 1 


N 1 




M 1 


M 1 


r^ 1 




r- 1 


•- 1 


00 1 






N 1 




UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


r^ 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 




O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


N 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N i 


O 


^- 1 


N 1 


ro 1 


V 1 


in 1 


so 1 


r«. 1 


O 1 


- 


M 1 


to 



-113- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 






< 
Ul 

>- 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



Ul ^ 

o 10 



>- 

IZ -5 

-J 10 

OQ 

< 

m 
o 

cm 
a. 



-6 
10 



.'I 



T 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




^ CM 
O 

+ 
UJ 



•<t in <£) r^ 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC'»2 

SUMMER S-2 



Figure 2.9.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
6-Experts for the Summer site. 



-114- 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISMICITY EXPERTS 



10 



-2 
10 

< 

Ul 

>- 

Q- 10 



o 

2 
< 

O 

^ -4 

Ul ^ 

o 10 



O 

>- 

!z -5 

-I 10 

ffi 

< 
m 
o 
a: 



-6 
10 



10 




O 

+ 



■* in <£> r^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC *2 



SUMMER S-2 



Figure 2.9.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Summer 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-115- 






HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 1 5 . , 50 . AND 85. 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 




O 

+ 



CM to 't IT) 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC »; 



SUMMER S-2 



Figure 2.9.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S ana b- 
Experts' input for the Summer site. 



-116- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



-1 
10 



-2 
10 

< 
UJ 

>- 

Q- 10 



o 
z 
< 

o 

LJ _4 

u 10 



< 

CD 
O 

ce 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC 



SUMMER S-2 



Figure 2.9.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Summer site. 



-117- 



E.U.S SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



l^h. 



5? 



10 



500., 1000., 2000., 5000., 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
3 BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



o 
o 



10 



o 

ui 
(/) 

> 1 

^ 10 



10 



-1 

10 



CM 

I o 




d.^X 



hO ■<* lOiDh^oOJi 



I O 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUMMER S-2 






Figure 2.9.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Summer site. 



-118- 



E.U.S SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 
1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



10 



10 



o 
ui 
(/) 



u 
o 



10 



10 



10 




CN 

I O 



To 



r-4 K) -* inioh^coji 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUMMER S-2 



to -^ loior^ooo) 



Figure 2.9.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Summer site. Plot symbols are 
given in Table 2.0 



-119- 



E.U.S SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES ^ 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 






o 

LJ 
(/) 
\ 

O 



u 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



CM 

I o 




I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUMMER S-2 



Figure 2.9.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Summer 
site. 



-120- 



E.U.S SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR : 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



o 

ui 
to 



2 
O 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



I o 




To 



PERIOD (SEC) ° 

SUMMER S-2 



""o 



Figure 2.9.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Summer site. 



-121- 



'm'e • ■ 

v./ 



I 



o 

Ul 



u 
o 



E.U.S SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUMMER S-2 



Figure 2.9.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Summer site. 



-122- 



E.U.S SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



o 

Ld 
l/> 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



10 



^^"^^™#^^^^"^ 



^^^^^■^■■^^^^^ 



I O 




RETURN PERIODS 
CURVE 5 ^ 10000 
CURVE 4 = 
CURVE 3 = 
CURVE 2 = 
CURVE 1 = 



5000 

2000 

1000 

500 



YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 



rO ■* in tDh-«XJi 



X 



r-i ro ■* iniorvocxD 



to -^ lO iDt^-oocn 



I o PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUMMER S-2 



Figure 2.9.10 



Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Summer site. 



-123- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR : 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 






10 



10 



o 

UJ 

(/) 

\ 

O 

>- 



o 



10 



10 



,S' 



• •Shallow Soil 
Rock 




cj ho -^ in tDi^ocxD 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

SUMMER S-2 






Figure 2.9.11 



Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Summer site. 



-124- 



2.10 Arkansas 

The location of the Arkansas site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol 
"A". Most of the structures at the Arkansas site are founded on rock. The 
hazard results for the rock case are given in Section 2.1 of Vol. V. In this 
section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on shallow 
soil. The soil at the Arkansas site was considered to be best represented by 
our Till-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. Table 2.10.1 and 
Figs. 2.10.1 to 2.10.11 give the basic results most applicable to the 
structures founded on shallow soil at the Arkansas site. 

We see by comparing Table 2.10.1 to Table 2.1.1 of Vol. V that the only major 
change is for S-Expert 1. For the other S-Experts, the percent contributions 
changes somewhat but no major shift from which zone was the most significant 
contributor to the BEHC for PGA. We see from Figs. 2.10.4 and 2.10.11 that 
the differences in CPHCs and CPUHS between the rock and Till-1 cases are about 
what would be expected based on the sensitivity results given in Section 2.2 
of Vol. VI. 



-125- 



:v;^i^^;v>:: 



UJ 






<N 



Of 
Ui 
0. 
X 

UI 

MM 

tctn 

UJ 
UIZ 

z< 

I- 

ZQ£ 

<D 

HU. 

B£ 

D 



<0 

D 



>■ 
OH 
D 
O 
UJ 
I- 

<c 
u 



D 



UJ 



M 









D 


D 






II 


CO 


z 








in 


ON 


N 


N 


00 


00 




V 


D 


ro 


to 




1 r- 


•- 










1 (M 




1 N 


1 T— 






UIO 


UJO 


1 0.0 


0.0 


1 UJO 


1 ujt>! 


1 UJO 


UJO 


1 HO 


1 uj^r 


UIO 1 




1 z 


z 


1 S 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 




1 z 


1 Z 1 




1 D 


D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 N 


1 O 


1 D 1 




N 


N 


1 O 


1 O 


IN 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 O 


1 N 


1 N 1 


z 
















«t 








D 


o 


V 


N 


lO 


V 


1 r«- 




1 N 


1 O 






M 


1 r- • 


• 


^— • 


1 r— • 


1 r- • 


1 •— • 


in • 


1 »— • 


1 r- • 


»o • 


1 . 1 


H 


V 


o 


^ 


1 O 


1 O 


1 rv 


!» 


1 ro 


1 O 


1 so 


1 m^ 1 


3 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


1 UI 


1 UJ 


1 UI 


1 UJ 


1 UI 


1 UI 


1 UI 




eq 


z 


z 


z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 




M 


D 


D 


D 


D 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 o 


N 1 


oc^ 


N 


N 


N 


N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 O 1 


l-O 
























zo 




Z 






Z 






II 








OvO 




D 






1 D 














o • 


• 


N • 


rO • 


K) • 


1 N • 


in . 


1 O • 


OS • 


^ ' 


^ • 


in • 1 


o 


(^(M 


V 


i-V 


O 


r- 


1 fsir«. 


1 lOOs 




t-(SI 


1 r-Os 


1 O 1 


IJ.W 


«o 


• 






1 • 


1 »— 


K> 


""n 






1 ^ 1 


o<r 


UJ 


Q. 


UI 


UJ 


0. 


1 UJ 


UI 


1 UI 


UI 


UJ 


1 UI 1 


o 


z 


Z 


Z 


z 


£ 


z 


z 


z 


1 z 


t Z 


1 Z 1 


^?o. 


D 


D 


D 


o 


o 


D 


D 


o 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 1 




N 


O 


N 


N 


o 


N 


N 


1 N 


N 


1 N 


1 N 1 


QX 
























zo 
























CM 


• 


• 


• 


. 


. 


• 


. 


OS . 


• 


. 


. 1 


z 


V 


eovo 


*ir> 


^Ov 


\r\0\ 


oveo 


o 


CM so 


1 inoo 


1 ino 


1 T-r«. 1 


u 


lAvO 


r-0> 


i-o> 


<^ 


1-Os 


I- so 


so so 


r^ 


1 .-OS 


1 r-eo 


1 00 1 


IH 
























UJC 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 1 


CQ 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


1 z 


z 


1 Z 1 




o 


D 


o 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


1 D 


1 o 


D 1 


o 

(L 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 1 
























UI 
























X 
























H 










z 








UI 






D 










o 




II 


lo 


z 






H 


K) 


0> 


so 


NO 


N 


OO 




r- 


D 




^ 1 




r— 


fB 


fv 


^M 




^ 


(M 




N 


ro 




>- 


• 


• 


. 


• 


• • 


• 




. 






. 1 


-J 


UJi- 


UJr- 


UJi- 


UJO 


Oli- 


Ulo 


Uli-^ 


UJ(SI 


II r- 


Ulto- 


UJ.- 1 


1- 


z 


Z 


2 


z 


X. 


z.- 


Z 


z 




Z 


Z 1 


Z 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 


D 


D 1 


<C 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 


O 


N 


N 1 


o 
























M 
















II 








u. 
























M 


o 


V 


N 


N 


V 


!>«• 




OS 


O 


^ 




z 


T" " 


• 


r— • 


• 


r- • 


r— • 


in • 


y~ ■ 


r- • 


^ • 


• 1 


o 


^r 


t— 


ON 


N 


M 


M 


OS 


r— 


lO 


(SI 


moo 1 


M 


Ui.- 


UI 


UI 


UI 


UJ 


UIN 


UI 


UJ(SI 


UI 


UI(SI 


,— 1 


Vi 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 


2 






o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 1 


H 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


O 1 


V) 
























D 




Z 




















E^ 




o 












<t 








O 


• 


N • 


M • 


to • 


r». • 


in • 


o • 


(SI • 


r- • 


lO • 


in • 1 


Oi« 


Ov(M 


\r\ 


r-V 


\r, 


1-ro 


(MO 


MV 


1-rt 


^-<^ 


r-r^ 


OO 1 


ZN 


KO 


• 


^- 






ro 


(SI 


N 




(SI 


N 1 


•Hf- 


UJ 


Q. 


Ul 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 1 


H • 


z 


Z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 1 


DO 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


o 


o 


o 


D 


D 


O 1 


«^ 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 1 


M<t 
























D£0 
























HQ. 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


OS • 


• 


• 


• 1 


Z 


r- 


ec^ 


V\0 


^(M 


IDhO 


osin 


VO 


N'T 


inrv 


mv 


f-(SI 1 


C2 


IDl/^ 


l-ON 


<-I^ 


ON 


l-ON 


r-ro 


SO so 


m 


.-co 


i-lO 


so 1 


oo 
























_l 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 1 


<0 


Z 


z 


2 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 1 


Ull- 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


o 


o 


o 


D 


D 


O 1 


Z«I 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 1 


D 
























N 1 


•• ■• 


.. .. 


•. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


• ■ •• 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 


.. .. 1 




Q • 


Q • 


Q • 


a • 


Q • 


Q • 


Q • 


Q • 


Q • 


O • 


a • 1 




Ml- 


MK 


Ml- 


•hH 


MH 


Ml- 


M|- 


Mt- 


MH 


Ml- 


MH 1 




z 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z 


Z 1 




UJO 


UJO 


UJO 


UIO 


UID 


UIO 


UID 


UJO 


UJO 


UJD 


UJD 1 




zo 


20 


zo 


zo 


ZO 1 


zo 


ZO 


zo 


zo 


ZO 


20 1 




O 1 


D 


O 1 


D 


O 1 


o 


D 


o 


O 


O 


D 1 




N^; 1 


D 1 


N^< 


D 


N^; 

D 


NX 1 


N^? 


N^? 


NJ< 


N>« 
II 


N^« 1 


HUJ 




N 1 


V 


N 


N 1 


(^ 


O 1 


OS 


in 




r- 1 


(OZ 1 


\t\ 




r" 1 






r- 1 


ro 1 


T— 


^ 


TT 




CD 1 




• 1 




• 


• 














XN 1 


UJ 


Q. 1 


UJ 


0. 


Q. 1 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UI i 




Z 1 


r 1 


Z 1 


za 1 


S 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


z 


2 1 


Z 1 




D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 


D 


O 1 


D 1 


h- t 


N 1 


O 1 


N 1 


O 1 


O 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 


N 


N 1 


N 1 


Ol • 1 
























XS 1 
























1 3 1 


r- 


(SI 


r/) 


•V 


\t\ 1 


SO 1 


1^ 1 


o 


^- 


N 


ro 1 


(OZ 1 
















r— 1 


r— 1 


t— 1 


r- 1 



-126- 




ifii 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



< 
>- 
cc 

LJ 

a. 



o 

z 
< 
o 

u 

X 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



-3 

10 



-4 

10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



t -5 
_j 10 

CO 

< 

CD 
O 

a: 

0. 

-6 

10 



10 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




>- (N CM ro 

o 

+ 

Ul 



-* If) <D P^ 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC*'2 



oo a> 



ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Arkansas site. 



-127- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 












-1 

10 



-2 
10 

< 

LJ 

5- 

1 it O 

o- 10 



< 

CI 

ui ^ 
o 10 

X 



O 



m 

i 



-5 

10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISMICITY EXPERTS 




— o\ 
o 

+ 



•* If) VD 1^ 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC»»2 



ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Arkansas 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-128- 



Wm^---:-.:'^-' 




E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



-1 
10 



-2 
10 

< 

Ul 

>- 

**= -\ 

UJ -J 
Q. 10 



u 

z 
< 
o 

^ -4 
o 10 

X 



!l -5 
_i 10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



CD 

I 

0. 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




li ACCELERATION CM/SEC* »2 

ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the Arkansas site. 



-129- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 






At 



10 



-2 

10 

< 

Ul 

>- 

Ld -J 

Q. 10 



UJ 

o 

z 
< 

Ul 

o 10 

X 



t: -5 

-J 10 

CD 

< 
CD 

o 

on 
a. 

-6 

10 



-7 
10 




CN CM 

O 

+ 



to "* in lo 

ACCELERATION CM/5EC*»2 



ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.4 Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Arkansas site. 



-130- 



WmM-^'' ^J 




E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



500., 1000.. 2000., 5000., 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



o 

UJ 

to 



S. 
o 



o 
o 




I o 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Arkansas site. 



-131- 



t 

X 

I 

1? 



o 

UJ 



o 



o 
o 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Arkansas site. Plot symbols are 
given in Table 2.0 



-132- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



o 

LJ 
t/1 



2 
O 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



I o 




^0 ■<* iT) <£ir-^0Q7> 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC)°2 

ARKANSAS S-2 






Figure 2.10.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the 
Arkansas site. 



-133- 



I 



o 

LlI 

in 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 




I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Arkansas site. 



-134- 







E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES - 15., 50. AND 85. 



O 

ui 
(/I 



o 



o 
o 




PERIOD (SEC) o 

ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Arkansas site. 



-135- 






Ul 

O 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 

I I I I I I I I I I I I 



I O 



W^^^-F^^ 




tr, -^ ir)iDr-«xr> 



RETURN PERIODS : 


: 


CURVE 5 = 


10000. 


YEARS 


CURVE 4 = 


5000. 


YEARS 


CURVE 3 = 


2000. 


YEARS 


CURVE 2 = 


1000. 


YEARS 


CURVE 1 = 


500 

1 


YEARS 


K) "* irxof^Kxyi 


CS| K> ■<* UO lOh^OOJ} 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.10 Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 

structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Arkansas site. 



-136- 







mn 



o 

LJ 
(/) 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

ARKANSAS S-2 



Figure 2.10.11 Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Arkansas site. 



-137- 



fit 
I I 



2.11 Call away 

The location of the Callaway site Is shown 1n Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol 
"B". Most of the structures at the Callaway site are founded on rock. The 
hazard results for the rock case are given In Section 2.2 of Vol. V. In this 
section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on shallow 
soil. The soil at the Callaway site was considered to be best represented by 
our Sand-1 soil category described in Section 2.2 of Vol. V. Table 2.11.1 and 
Figs. 2.11.1 to 2.11.11 give the basic results most applicable to the 
structures founded on shallow soil at the Callaway site. 

If Table 2.11.1 is compared to Table 2.2.1 of Vol. V we see a number of 
significant changes, particularly for S-Experts 3,5,10,11 and 13. For these 
S-Experts the host becomes much more important for the shallow soil case as 
compared to the rock case. We can see from Figs. 2.11.4 and 2.11.11 that 
there are significant differences between the median CPHCs and CPUHS for the 
shallow soil case as compared to the rock case. The differences are larger 
than for most of the other sites except Browns Ferry. This variation in the 
correction for soil category between sites is discussed in Section 3. 



-138- 



wm 















o 








n 
















lA 


o 


N 


to 


o 


1^ 


V 


in 




to 










1 r— 
1 


1 CM 


1 


1 1- 

1 , 


1 .— 


• CM 1 r- 


1 


1 r- 


1 to 


1 1 










1 UJ(M 


1 UIO 


1 Q-r- 


1 UJf- 


1 UIO 


1 UIO 1 Ulo 


1 • 1 

1 Ulo 1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 Ulo 1 










1 Z 


1 Z 


■ H 


t z 


1 z 


1 Z 1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 2 1 










I D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O ID 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 O 1 










1 N 
1 

1 


1 N 

1 

1 


1 O 


1 N 

1 

1 


1 N 
1 Z 


IN IN 
1 1 


1 N 

1 
1 


1 N 
1 


1 N 

1 
1 


1 N 1 
1 1 








z 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 D 


1 1 


1 to 


1 


1 


1 1 








o 

M 


1 1- • 


1 ON 
1 r- • 


1 M 

1 r- • 


1 tri 
1 • 


1 N 
1 . 


1 00 1 


1 «- 


1 »- 


1 TT 


1 SO 1 








H 


1 m 


1 M 


1 SO 


1 N 


1 -o 


t f^ * 1 Ul • 

1 NO I r- 


1 t/1 


1 r— • 

1 m 


1 r- • 
1 V 


1 • 1 








3 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 D. 


1 Ul 1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 1 








n 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 £ 


1 Z 1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 2 


1 2 1 








»-« 


1 o 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 O 


ID ID 


1 D 


1 o 


1 O 


1 O 1 










1 N 
1 


1 N 
1 


1 N 
1 


1 N 
1 


1 O 


IN IN 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 1 








ZO 


1 


1 Z 






, 


1 1 
1 Z 1 


! 


1 
1 


1 


1 1 








Oso 


1 


1 D 


1 


1 


r 


ID 1 II 


1 4 




1 


1 1 
1 1 








O • 


1 


1 N • 


1 CM • 


r ro • 


1 in . 


1 N • 1 


1 CM • 


1 o • 


1 to • 


1 in • 1 








o 


1 OvV 
1 rr 

1 Ul 


1 in 
1 CL 


1 .->«0 
1 TT 
1 UJ 


1 r^ 

1 
1 UJ 


1 t-O 
1 CM 

1 Ul 


1 ON 1 CMM 
10. 1 Ul 


1 .-NO 

1 
1 Ul 


1 i-rv 
1 to 

1 Ul 


1 r-CM 
1 T 
1 Ul 


1 fv 1 

1 (M 1 
1 Ul 1 








O 


1 z 


1 E 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 S: 1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 2 1 








^\Q. 


1 o 


1 D 


1 O 


1 o 


1 D 


ID ID 


1 D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 O 1 








QX 


1 N 
1 


1 O 
1 


1 N 


1 N 

1 


1 N 


1 O IN 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 1 








ZO 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


I 1 
1 1 


1 II 


1 

1 Ul 


1 


1 1 








Cm 


1 


1 


1 


1 






1 . 


1 2 . 


1 a 


1 1 








X 

o 

Ih- 


1 09s 


1 COM 


1 vop^ 


1 5I-0 


1 TTON 


1 r>.v 1 so 


1 ON(M 


1 DON 


1 inn- 


1 N 1 








t r-T 


1 r-O^ 
1 


1 r-^ 


1 On 
1 


1 t-l^ 
1 


1 f-eo 1 v«on 
1 1 


1 r-ON 


1 Nin 


1 r-in 


1 r^ 1 
1 in 1 








UI<X 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 Ul 1 UJ 


1 Ul 


1 
1 II 


1 

1 Ul 








n 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 Z 1 z 


1 Z 


1 


1 z 


. *" , 










1 O 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 o 


ID ID 


1 D 


i N 


1 D 


1 N 1 








0. 


1 N 

1 
1 


1 N 

1 


1 N 


1 N 

1 

1 


1 N 


IN IN 
1 1 


1 N 

1 


1 O 


1 N 
1 


1 O 1 
1 1 








UJ 


1 


1 

1 


1 
1 


1 




1 1 
1 1 

1 1 




1 

1 


1 

1 


1 1 








X 


1 




1 






1 1 




1 












H 


1 




1 






1 




1 


1 


1 1 




h- 






1 


1 Z 








1 1 


1 


' 












D 
> 


• 


D 

N 

• • 


• 


to 


i- 
• 


I 1 
1 1 

r* 1 o 
N 1 to 
• 1 . 


N 
1 to 


1 m 

1 r- 


1 
1 

to 


1 1 
to 1 




UJ 




-1 


UIM 


Q.^ 


UJO 


UJ,- 


LUo 


Ul,- 1 Ulo 


Ulo 


1 UJr- 


UJO 


uiin 1 




V)N 




i— 
Z 


Z 

c 


D 


z 
o 


z 

D 


z 
o 


Z 1 z 
D 1 D 


z 

D 


1 Z 
1 O 


z 

D 


Z 1 

O 1 




cuvi 




4 

o 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 


N 1 N 


N 


1 N 


N 


N 1 


1—1 


UJ 
Q.>- 




M 

u. 










z 
o 


1 

Z 1 
O 1 II 


< 


1 




1 
1 
1 


1— ( 
I— 1 

w 

PQ 


UKt 
Z-i 
D_J 
N<t 
O 
1- 

zq: 




M 

Z 1 
O 1 

M 1 

V) I 

t- 1 

V) 1 
O 1 


r- 

SO 
UJ,- 
Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


O 
CM • 

in 
Ul 1 
Z 1 
O 1 
N 


1— • 
M 
Ulr- 1 
Z 1 
O 1 
N 1 


r- 1 
UJr- 1 
Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


N 

•o 
a. 1 
z 1 

D 1 
O 1 


N 1 

• 1 CM • 
•ro 1 to 
a. 1 Ul 
E t z 
D 1 O 
O 1 N 1 
1 1 


N 

NO 

UICM 

z 

O 

N 


1 f- 

1 o 
1 UJ,- 

i z 

1 D 

1 N 1 
1 1 
1 UJ 1 


r- • 
CO 
UJ 

z 
o 

N 1 


so 1 
• 1 
in 1 
UJi- 1 
Z 1 
O 1 

N 1 


< 


<IO 




S--^ 1 












' 


to 

r- 

to 

Ul 






H 


l-U. 

D 
DL 




CD 1 
Oin 1 
ZM 1 

Mr- 1 


OvON 1 

<M 1 

Ul 1 


ON • 1 

r-in 1 
Ul*" 1 


SO • 1 

.-M 1 

N 1 

Ul 1 


fO • 1 
O 1 
CM 1 

UJ 1 


m . 1 

i-tO 1 

»o 1 

Ul 1 


OO • 1 • 1 

i-r>. 1 lAf- 1 

1 T- 1 

UJ 1 Ul 1 


1 Z 1 
1 D • 1 
1 Nin 1 

1 CM 1 

1 II 1 


in • 1 

r-SO 1 

r- 1 

Ul 1 


n- 1 
into 1 






H • 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 Z 1 


z 


1 1 


Z 1 
D 1 


<■" 1 




M 




30 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 D 1 


D 


1 N 1 


N 1 
O 1 




H 




69^^ 1 
M< 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 N 1 


N 


1 O 1 


N 1 




Vi 




OfO 1 












1 1 












D 




HO. 1 


. 1 


. 1 


. 1 


, 1 


, 1 


1 1 


II 










£ 




Z 1 
02 1 

UO 1 


OM 1 


com 1 


CM^ 1 
r-sO 1 


VON 1 
NO 1 


<-so 1 


r^eo 1 r«. i 
t-eo 1 Noeo 1 


ON to 


1 • 1 

1 OV 1 
,-sO 1 


toin 1 

r-l>v 1 


into 1 
n- 1 








—I 1 


Ul 1 


UJ 1 


Ul 1 


UJ 1 


Ul 1 


Ul 1 UJ 1 


Ul 


UJ 1 


UJ t 


Ul 1 






1 
Q 


(0 1 
UJI- 1 
Z<C 1 

D 1 


Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


Z 1 
O 1 
N 1 


Z 1 Z 1 
D i D 1 
N 1 N 1 


z 

D 
N 


Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 


Z 1 
O 1 
N 1 


Z 1 
D 1 
N 1 






Z 


N 1 


.. .. 1 


.. .. 1 


.. .. 1 


•• •• 1 


•• •• 1 


•• *• 1 •• .. 1 




1 
•• •• 1 










< 

w 




Q • 1 


Q • 1 


Q • 1 


O • 1 


Q • 1 


Q • 1 Q • 1 


Q • 


a • 1 


Q • 1 


Q • 1 








Ml- 1 

Z 1 
UJO 1 


Ml- 1 


Mh- 1 


Ml- 1 


MH 1 


Ml- 1 Mf- 1 


M|- 


Ml- 1 


Mh- 1 


Ml— 1 






> 

D 
O 
UJ 

1- 




Z 1 
UIO 1 


Z 1 
UIO 1 


Z 1 
UJO 1 


Z 1 

UD 1 


Z 1 Z 1 
Ulo 1 UIO 1 


z 

UJO 


Z 1 
UIO 1 


Z 1 

UID 1 


Z 1 
UIO 1 








ZO 1 
D 1 
N>? 1 


ZO 1 
D 1 

N^? 1 


ZO 1 
O 1 

N^? 1 


ZO 1 
O 1 


ZO 1 
D 1 
N>^ 1 


ZO IZO 1 

D ID 1 

Nis° 1 N>? 1 

1 1 


ZO 

o 
N.\* 


ZO 1 
D 1 

N^? 1 


ZO 1 
O 1 
N.X 1 


ZO 1 
O 1 
N>? 1 


















1 1 














< 

o 


HUI 1 
V)Z 1 
DO 1 


in 1 


O 1 
N 1 


NO 1 


to 1 


V 1 


D 1 II 1 
N 1 1 


1 Z 1 
ON 1 D 1 


II 1 








—1 


r- 1 


, 1 


T— 1 


r- 1 


r" 1 


1 CM 1 


r" 1 


N 1 


'T 1 








M 

D 
CO 

UJ 


IN 1 


Ul 1 


a. 1 


Ul 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


Q. 1 Ul 1 


Ul 1 


II 1 


UJ 1 


in 1 








Z 1 


z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z: 1 Z 1 


Z 1 




2 1 


*" ! 






1- 1 
0. • 1 


D 1 
N 1 


O 1 
O 1 


O 1 
N 1 


D 1 
N 1 


D 1 
N 1 


D 1 D 1 
O 1 N 1 


D 1 
N 1 


N 1 
O 1 


D 1 
N 1 


N 1 
O 1 






1- 


XE 1 












1 1 
1 1 
















1 Z> 1 
(OZ 1 


'~ [ 


(M 1 


to 1 


V 1 


U\ 1 


NO 1 r*. 1 
1 1 


O 1 

T— 1 


r— 1 


CM 1 
r- 1 


to 1 

r- 1 



-139- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 






QQ 
< 

m 
o 

Q. 



-1 

10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 





-2 


\ 




10 


1 "v. 


< 




\\ 


LlI 






>- 




\ 


a: 

Ul 


-3 


\ 


a. 


10 




UJ 






o 




. 


^ 






< 






Q 






Ul 
LJ 


-4 




(.^ 


10 


- 


X 







10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




o 

+ 



ACCELERATION CM/SEC**2 

CALLAWAY S-2 



Figure 2.11.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Callaway site. 



-140- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEISMICITY EXPERTS 



a: 

< 

>- 

DC 

UJ 
Q. 



o 

z 

t 

Ul 
UJ 

o 



CD 
< 

CD 
O 

or 

D. 



10 



-2 
10 



-3 

10 



-4 

10 



10 



10 



-7 
10 




O 

+ 



-* in ID r^ 
ACCELERATION CM/5EC"'2 



CALLAWAY S-2 



Figure 2.11.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Callaway 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-141- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



I I 

5: 



a: 
< 

ui 

>- 

oa 

UI 

a. 



o 
< 



O 
X 
UJ 



CQ 
< 

m 
o 

CL- 



-1 
10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



-4 
10 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 







HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 


\ 










- 


\ 

\ 
. \ 




N 


\ 

\ 


\ 
\ 

\ 


0\_^ 




\ 
\ 


^'X ^'1 









o 

+ 



ACCELERATION CM/5EC»»2 



CALLAWAY S-2 



Figure 2.11.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the Callaway site. 



-142- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



10 



-2 
10 

< 
>- 

Q- 10 



o 10 



t -5 
_) 10 

m 

< 

CD 
O 

q: 
a. 

-6 

10 



-7 
10 




<N CM 
O 

ui ACCELERATION CM/SEC* '2 



CALLAWAY S-2 



Figure 2.11.4 Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Callaway site. 



-143- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



It 
IcC 

!; 



o 

Ul 



2 
o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



500.. 1000.. 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 









■ 




^^ ■ 




/ 


X y^^^yy^-^ — ""^ 




'^y^ ' ' 


r 


y 


' 


y 




: 









to -^ iniorvaoD 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CALLAWAY S-2 



o 



Figure 2.11.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Callaway site. 



-144- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



10 



10 



o 

UJ 



o 



(J 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



^■^™^^^^ 



CM 
I O 




To 






PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CALLAWAY S-2 






Figure 2.11.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Callaway site. Plot symbols are 
given in Table 2.0 



-145- 



\>- 

I I 

If 



u 

UJ 
CO 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CALLAWAY S-2 



Figure 2.11.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the 
Callaway site. 



-146- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES - 1 5 . . 50 . AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

(/J 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




To 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CALLAWAY S-2 



Figure 2.11.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Callaway site. 



-147- 



E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES =: 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



1 1 



o 

o 

>- 



u 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




CM 

I o 



To 



f-i ro ■* m iOt^-JXXTi 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CALLAWAY S-2 



K) -^ intDi~^axr> 



Figure 2.11.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Callaway site. 



-148- 




•A-:- 




E.U.S. SEISMIC HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



o 

to 

o 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



■^■■■■il^^^^"^^^ 



CM 

I o 




PETURh 
CURVE 


J 1- 
5 


'ERIODS : 
^ 10000. 


YEARS 


CURVE 


4 


= 5000. 


YEARS 


CURVE 


3 


= 2000. 


YEARS 


CURVE 


2 


= 1000. 


YEARS 


CURVE 


1 


= 500. 


YEARS 



rO ■* iT) cD(^-aXr> 



r-i ro •* ioior^«xn 



CJ rO -^ IT) i£>f^CCXTi 



' 2 PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CALLAWAY S-2 



Figure 2.11.10 Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 

structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Callaway site. 



-149- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



I « 



o 

Ul 



2 



o 
o 



UJ 

> 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



CM 

I O 



^T 



^ Shallow Soil 
- Rock 




rO ■<* m tDr--JKCr> 






I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

CALLAWAY S-2 



Figure 2.11.11 Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Callaway site. 



-150- 



2.12 Duane Arnold 

The location of the Duane Arnold site is shown in Fig. 1.1 by the plot symbol 
"C". Most of the structures at the Duane Arnold site are founded on rock. 
The hazard results for the rock case are given in Section 2.6 of Vol. V. In 
this section we present the hazard curves for the structures founded on 
shallow soil. The soil at the Duane Arnold site was considered to be best 
represented by our Till-1 soil category described in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. 
Table 2.12.1 and Figs. 2.12.1 to 2.12.11 give the basic results most 
applicable to the structures founded on shallow soil at the Duane Arnold site, 

If Table 2.12.1 is compared to Table 2.6.1 of Vol. V we see only relatively 
minor changes in the percent contribution from the various zones. The 
differences between the median CPHC and CPUHS for the shallow soil case and 
the rock case are similar to the differences observed in Section 2.2 of 
Vol. VI. 



-151- 



I I 

If 



CM 






ILI 

0.N 
X I 
UJbO 
I 

UJZ 

•x 

UJliI 

zz 

D<r 

Q 
(- 

ZQf 
CD 
Hli- 
Q£ 
O 
0. 



H 
D 



o 



zo 

OvO 

o • 

o 
LL^ 
D<t 

O 

QX 

zo 

X 

o 

XI- 

m 

<t 
o 
a. 



X 



D 
>• 



O 



o 

M 



10 

D 

O 
ZM 



30 
BQ^ 
M<t 
QfO 
l-Q. 
Z 

OD 

Ull- 

z<t 

o 

N 



>- 




a: 




D 




O 




tu 




K- 




< 




O 


KUJ 




WZ 


-J 


DO 


M 


IN 


D 




W 






1- 


UI 


£L • 


1- 


xs 


M 


1 ■=> 


(O 


(AZ 









D 








ro 








o 


KO 


m 


N 


(SI 


CO 




r— 


NO 




M 


•- I 




•- I 




1— 1 


r- 1 


V 1 






r^ 1 




Uiir\ 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


(LO 1 


UJO 1 


UJ,- 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UJO 1 


UtO 1 


UIO 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z: 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


O 1 


o 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 


O 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 
II 1 


N 1 

<t 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 


r- 1 


T— 1 


(SI 1 


NO 1 


TT 1 


h- 1 




N 1 


r- 1 




r- 


r— • 1 


(SI • 1 


T— • 1 


• 1 


• 1 


^ * 1 


(NJ • 1 


T— • 1 


r- • 1 


NO • 1 


• 


(SI 1 


O 1 


O 1 


IT 1 


O 1 


(SJ 1 


^- 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 1 


O 


LUN 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 1 


UJ 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


O 1 


O 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 


N 1 


N 1 

Z 1 
D 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 1 

z 

D 1 


N 1 

Z 1 
O 1 


N 1 


N 1 

O 1 


N 1 


N 1 


N 


in • 1 


N • 1 


M • 1 


M . 1 


N • 1 


N • 1 


• 1 


T— • 1 


O • 


• 1 


m • 


t-M 1 


o> 1 


.-(SI 1 


1-in 1 


OO 1 


r«- 1 


rO(SI 1 


O 1 


?— r— 1 


mo 1 


(SI 


M 1 


• ro 1 




r— 1 






M 1 










U 1 


CL 1 


UJ { 


UJ 1 


Ol'~ I 


Ol I 


UJ 1 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


Z 1 


Z I 


Z 1 


Z 1 


s: t 


£ 1 


Z 1 


Z 1 


z 


Z 1 


z 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


D 1 


D 1 


D 1 


O 1 


o 


D 1 


D 


N 1 


O 1 


N 1 

Z 
O • 1 


N 1 


O 1 


U 1 


N 1 


N 
II 


N 

UJ 

z • 


N 


N 


O 1 


eOr- 1 


Noo 1 


TTl- 1 


inN 


(SIO 


00 


(^o 


OOn 


mo 


OO 


OMn 


1-NO 1 


ON 1 


eo 


T-eo 


(SI ON 


NO NO 


r-O 


NON 


r-O 


ON 

m 


UJ 


UJ 


(L 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ*" 


II 


UJ 


,— 


z 


z 


Z 1 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 




z 




D 


D 


D 1 


o 


o 


o 


D 


D 


N 


D 


N 


N 


N 


O 


N 


N 


N 


N 
II 


N 


O 


N 


O 


in 


,_ 


in 


ro 


(SI 


OO 




NO 


m 




V 


r— 


(SI 


•- 


r- 


>- 


<- 


(SI 


(NJ 


T- 


1*- 




LUi- 


UJ(SI 


ujr<. 


UJtT 


UJr- 


ixim 


UJ.- 


UJf- 


UJO 


UJ«0 


UIO 


Zt- 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 


z 


D 


o 


D 


o 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


D 


o 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 


N 

Z 
D 


N 


N 
(SI 


N 


N 


N 


o 


o 


N 


in 


^ 


N 




K) 


T— 


V 


so 


f— • 


(SI • 


^ ■ 


• 


r- 


• 


m . 


• 


^ • 


r- • 


• 


NO 


N1 


(SI 


^ 


ro 


•T— 


(SI 


r- 


V 


m 


r— 


LUi- 


UJ 


UJi- 


UJ 


UJ 


Q-r- 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Ulr- 


UJ 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


S 


z 


z 


z 


z 


z 


D 


o 


D 


D 


o 


O 


o 


D 


D 


D 


D 


N 


N 

z 

D 


N 


N 


N 

Z 
D 


o 


N 


N 

<X 


N 


IN 


N 


,_ . 


N • 


M • 


NO • 


N • 


r^ • 


• 


(SI • 


O • 


r/) . 


m • 


,_,_ 


o 


.-V 


(NJ 




l-NO 


K)(SI 


r-V 


r-fO 


1 T-O 


1 NO 


K) 


•(SI 




(SI 


• ^» 


(SI 


^ 




^ 


1 N 


1 T— 


UJ 


Q. 


UJ 


UJ 


D. 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


1 UI 


1 UI 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


S 


1 z 


z 


z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 


D 


D 


D 


o 


D 


1 o 


1 D 


1 D 


D 


1 D 


1 D 


N 


O 


N 

Z 
o • 


N 


O 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 
II 


1 N 

UJ 

1 z • 


1 N 


• N 


Ov 


com 


Nvo 


vr^ 


mm 


(NJO 


m 


ONTT 


1 DM 


1 m(si 


1 M 


O^M 


r-r>- 


NO 


NO 


.-co 


1 (SlNO 


1 NOOO 


1 T-ON 


1 NOO 


1 ,-NO 


1 00 

1 m 


tu 


UJ 


Cl 


UJ 


UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


UJ 


II 


1 UJ 


1 r- 


Z 


z 


£: 


z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 


1 z 




1 z 




o 


o 


o 


o 


1 o 


1 D 


t D 


1 D 


N 


1 O 


1 N 


N 


1 N 


o 


N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 O 


1 N 


1 O 


Q • 


Q • 


Q • 


a • 


1 •• •• 

1 Q • 


1 Q • 


1 a ' 


1 Q • 


1 Q • 


1 Q • 


1 Q • 


t-iH 


1 MK 


1 Mt- 


1 MH 


1 MH 


1 HHl- 


1 Mt- 


1 Ml- 


1 Ml- 


1 t-lh- 


1 Ml- 


Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 Z 


LUD 


1 UJD 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UJO 


1 UIO 


1 UJO 


1 UIO 


ZO 


1 ZO 


1 ZO 


1 ZO 


1 ZO 


1 zo 


t zo 


1 zo 


1 zo 


1 ZO 


1 zo 


D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 D 


N>^ 


1 N>J 

1 D 


1 N5< 

1 D 


1 N>? 


1 N>< 

1 D 


1 N>? 


1 NX 


1 NJ< 


INK 

IZ 


iN.X* 
1 II 


1 NJ< 


in 


1 N 


1 N 


1 ro 


1 N 


1 (SI 




1 ON 


1 D 






•- 






1 r- 




1 N 


1 M 


1 •" 


1 N 


1 * 


1 m 


111 


1 a. 


1 a. 


1 UJ 


1 0. 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 UJ 


1 II 


1 UI 


1 ^ 


z 


1 £: 


1 £: 


1 Z 


1 Z 


1 z 


1 Z 


1 z 




1 z 




D 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


1 D 


1 D 


1 O 


t o 


1 N 


1 O 


1 N 


N 


1 o 


1 o 


1 N 


1 O 


1 N 


1 N 


1 N 


1 o 


1 N 


lO 


- 


1 (SI 


1 M 


1 ^ 


1 m 


1 SO 


1 r^ 


1 o 


i- 


1 (SI 

1 r- 


1 tfi 



-152- 







mm 



HAZARD FOP STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



ix. 

< 

LkJ 

>- 

q: 
ui 

Q. 
UJ 

o 

z 
< 



o 



-1 

10 



-2 
10 



-3 

10 



-4 
10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



>- 

*Z -5 

-J 10 

m 

< 
m 
o 
ce 
o. 

-6 
10 



-7 

10 



I I 



B - BEST ESTIMATE 
A - ARITHMETIC MEAN 




O 



■* in lO r^ 
ACCELERATION CM/SEC*'2 

DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



Figure 2.12.1 



Comparison of the BEHC and the AMHC applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil aggregated over all S and 
G-Experts for the Duane Arnold site. 



-153- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



BEST ESTIMATE 

FOR THE SEI5MICITY EXPERTS 



I I 



a: 

< 



ui 
a. 



< 



o 

X 



O 

V 



m 
< 

CO 

o 
on 
a. 



10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



-4 
10 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




o 

+ 



Tt ID U3 r-^ 

ACCELERATION CM/SEC"2 



DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



Figure 2.12.2 



BEHCs applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
per S-Expert combined over all G-Experts for the Duane Arnold 
site. Plot symbols given in Table 2.0. 



-154- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCEh4TILES = 15., 50. AND 85. 



'mmmsk 



< 
>- 

UJ 



g 



-1 
10 



-2 
10 



-3 
10 



HAZARD CURVES USING ALL EXPERTS 



ui "^ 
o 10 

X 



o 



m 
< 
m 
o 
cc 
a. 



10 



-6 
10 



-7 
10 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC* »2 

DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



Figure 2.12.3 



CPHCs for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentiles applicable for 
the structures founded on shallow soil based on all S and G- 
Experts' input for the Duane Arnold site. 



-155- 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

PERCENTILES = 15., 50. AND 85, 



I t 

!i 



10 



10 

< 
>- 

lij o 

Q-^ 10 

UJ 

u 
z 
< 

o 

UJ ^ 

o 10 



O 



ffi 
< 
m 
o 
en 
a. 



10 



10 



-7 
10 




ACCELERATION CM/SEC**2 

DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



Figure 2.12.4 



Comparison between the CPHCs for the secondary soil category 
given in Table 1.1 and the rock case for the Duane Arnold 
site. 



-156- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



500., 1000.. 2000.. 5000.. 10000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 
3 BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA COMBINED OVER ALL EXPERTS 



10 



10 



o 

bJ 
C/) 



2 

o 



o 
o 



Ul 

> 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



I o 




K) ■<* irnOf^0CXT> 



I o 



r-i to •* iniorvoon c-i 

PERIOD (SEC) 2 

DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



o 



Figure 2.12.5 



BEUHS applicable for the structures founded on shallow soil 
for return periods of 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Duane Arnold site. 



-157- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

BEST ESTIMATE SPECTRA BY SEISMIC EXPERT FOR 

1000. YEARS RETURN PERIOD 



10 



I I 

M 

jf 



10 



o 
to 



o 



o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



^^^^^X 



CM 
I O 




diriJ. 



ro -<t mu>r-jxxr> 



I O 



r-j ro ■* ir)U5h-«xn 



PERIOD (SEC) o 

DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



o 



Figure 2.12.6 



The 1000 year return period BEUHS applicable for the 
structures founded on shallow soil per S-Expert aggregated 
over all G-Experts for the Duane Arnold site. Plot symbols 
are given in Table 2.0 



-158- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

500. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES ^ 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 
ui 
(/) 
\ 

<_> 

>- 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 

10 



^^^^^F^ 



CM 

I o 




to ■* m tDr^-xxxn 



K5 •* miDr><xxr> 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

DUANE ARNOLD S-2 






Figure 2.12.7 



500 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th 
percentiles aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Duane 
Arnold site. 



-159- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

1000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES = 1 5 . . 50 . AND 85. 



10 



I I 



o 

ui 
(/I 

o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



I o 




PERIOD (SEC) 2 

DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



Figure 2.12.8 



1000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Duane Arnold site. 



-160- 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 

10000.-YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 

PERCENTILES ^ 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



10 



o 

LiJ 
(/I 



2 

o 



o 
o 



10 



10 



-1 
10 




K) ■< lO IDI^^CQD 



c-i K) "* mtDh-^tcr> 



a ro "<t to t£>r^~acxT> 



I o 



I o 



PERIOD (SEC) 2 

DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



Figure 2.12.9 



10000 year return period CPUHS applicable for the structures 
founded on shallow soil for the 15th, 50th and 85th percentile 
aggregated over all S and G-Experts for the Duane Arnold site. 



-161- 



v'i!»taaafi«Mv< 






o 



o 



o 



10 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



HAZARD FOR STRUCTURES ON SHALLOW SOIL 
LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 



50-TH PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR ALL RETURN PERIODS 



I o 



I' I M 



^^^^^^^^ 




RETURN PERIODS 



CURVE 5 = 
CURVE 4 = 
CURVE 3 ^ 
CURVE 2 = 
CURVE 1 = 



10000. 
5000. 
2000. 



YEARS 
YEARS 
YEARS 



1000. YEARS 
500. YEARS 



iiJ. 



To 



r~i to •* mtor--oixr> 



PERIOD (SEC) o 



^O 



DUANE ARNOLD S-2 



Figure 2.12.10 Comparison of the 50th percentile CPUHS applicable for the 

structures founded on shallow soil for return periods of 500, 
1000, 2000, 5000 and 10000 years for the Duane Arnold site. 



-162- 



iQgjMOBwiimKyiM^ygpomo'x 



LOWER MAGNITUDE OF INTEGRATION IS 5.0 
10000. -YEAR RETURN PERIOD CONSTANT PERCENTILE SPECTRA FOR 
PERCENTILES = 15.. 50. AND 85. 



10 



o 

UJ 

(/J 



o 
o 



10 



10 



10 



-1 
10 



CM 

I O 



Shallow Soil 
Rock 




c->i N-) '^ in (Df^jjccri 



I o 



r-l K) -* iniDr~vOQT> CJ 


l^ -5l- iD t£)|-va2D 


PERIOD (SEC)°2 


^o 


DUANE ARNOLD S-2 





Figure 2.12.11 Comparison between the 10000 year return period 15th, 50th and 
85th percentile for the shallow soil case and the rock case 
for the Duane Arnold site. 



-163- 



I 1 

u 



3.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

3.1 Regional and Site-to-Site Variation 

In Section 2.2 of Vol. VI we explored the regional (site-to-site) variation of 
the computed CPHCs between the rock base case and the various soil categories 
defined in Section 3.7 of Vol. I. Our approach in Vol. VI was to pick one 
site (Limerick) and examine the effect of changing the sites soil category on 
the computed CPHCs and CPUHS. Then we compared the results of this 
sensitivity study to the results obtained at three pairs of sites with 
different soil categories each pair being made up of two sites "close" to each 
other. See Table 2.2.2 of Vol. VI. We concluded, on the basis of these 
comparisons, that there did not appear to be a large regional or site-to-site 
variation between the rock and shallow soil categories for the computed median 
CPHCs and CP HS. The results given in Section 2 of this report are at odds 
with the conclusion reached in Vol. VI when the comparison is made on the 
basis of probabilities of exceedance for a given ground motion value (i.e., 
PGA). For example, in Fig. 3.1.1 we plot, and in Table 1.1 we give, the ratio 
between the median probability of exceeding 0.3g for the shallow soil case to 
the rock case for the twelve sites contained in this volume. We see from 
Table 1.1 and Fig. 3.1.1 that the ratio of probabilities of exceedance for a 
fixed PGA (for just the sites that fall into the Sand-1 soil category) varies 
between 2.4 to over 5. In Vol. VI our results suggested a ratio of 
approximately 2.5 (see Fig. 2.2.10 of Vol. VI). 

However, it is easier to understand the behavior of the results when the 
parameter of interest is the ground motion parameter itself (i.e., the PGA or 
PSRV) rather than the probabilities of exceedance. 



Let us first examine the ratios, r(p), of PGA between the shallow soil i^{p) 
to the rock case a (p) for three different.but fixed orobabil ities of 
exceedance (p) equal to 10' 



* three different but fixed probabilities 
)'^, 10"^ and 10"^. r(p) is defined by: 



r(p) = 



a3(p) 

V(pT 



The values of a.(p) and a^(p) reported in Table 3.1.1 are taken from the 
Fig. 2.SN.4 of Vol. VIII for each of the 12 sites. 

Recall that there are two types of site corrections being applied in this 
analysis (see Vol. I Section 3.7). 

One type of correction is the simple correction advocated by G-Expert 5, 
for which the median correction factor shallow soil /rock is approximately 
equal to 0.73 (see left side of Fig. 3.10 in Vol. I) regardless of the 
specific shallow site category. 

The other type of correction, advocated by the other 4 G-Experts, is the 
categorized correction for which the ratios (shallow/rock) depend on the 



-164- 



tiiiSsM 



soil category (see left sides of Figs. 3.12 and 3.13 of Vol. I) and are 
equal to: 



Sand-1/Rock 
Till-1/Rock 
Till-2/Rock 



r=1.65 
r=1.55 
r=1.38 



Thus if the only ground motion input used were that of G-Expert 5, we would 
expect the average correction factor r(p) to be always approximately 0.73. 

Furthermore, if G-Expert 5's input were not used, we would expect the average 
ratio shallow/rock to be 1.65 when the shallow soil is in category Sand-1, 
1.55 if it is in category Till-1, and 1.38 if it is in category Till-2. 

Since the results presented here used input from all the G-Experts in a 
proportion approximately of 1/5 weight for each of them, we would expect, on 
the average, the ratios r(p) to be equal to: 

{.73)(.20) + (1.65)(.80) = 1.47 for Sand-1/Rock 
(.73)(.20) + (1.55)(.80) = 1.39 for Till-1/Rock 
(.73)(.20) + {1.38)(.80) = 1.25 for Till-2/Rock 

Column (7) of Table 3.1.1 gives for each of the 12 sites of Table 1.1 the 
expected approximate ratio if G-Expert 5 were not used, column (6) shows the 
expected ratio if only G-Expert 5 were used, column (5) gives the expected 
approximate ratio if all G-Experts were weighted equally, and the next column 
(4) gives the average of the ratios shallow/rock given in columns (1), (2) and 
(3). Columns fl), (2) and (31 give the r(p) values for the probabilities of 



exceedance 10" 



and 10" 



Table 3.1.1 shows clearly that the effective correction factors (column (4)), 
which are obtained as an average of correction factors for three given 
probabilities of exceedance, are in general very close to the approximate 
values one would expect if the ground motion experts choices of correction 
were weighted equally (compare columns (4) and (5) in Table 3.1.1). 

The deviation from the value in column (5) is due to the complex interaction 
between ground motion models and seismicity zones, seismicity parameters and 
the fact that the correction factor is not deterministic but is defined by a 
probability distribution. Depending on all those factors the impact will be 
that the correction advocated by G-Expert 5 will have more or less weight, 
relative to the other 4 experts. For Oconee, the combination of the above 
mentioned interactions leads to an impact of G-Expert 5 greater than the equal 
weight case. For the other sites, but Three Mile Island and North Anna, the 
effect is reversed and the opinion of G-Expert 5 appears to be more diluted 
than in the equal weight case. 

For Three Mile Island and North Anna neither group (i.e., with or without G- 
Expert 5) seems to dominate. 

The case of Arkansas, Callaway and Duane Arnold requires additional 
scrutiny. For those three sites. Table 3.1.1 shows that the effective 



-165- 



i' 



amplification factors (column (4)) obtained in our simulation are close to the 
case when Expert 5's model is not used (compare column (4) with column (7)). 

This phenomenon seems extreme and can be explained as follows, (remembering 
that we are comparing median hazard curves for rock and for soil): 

For the rock case, the contribution to the hazard comes from distant large 
earthquakes. Figure 3.4 of Vol. I shows that in that range, 6-Expert 5's 
ground motion model (number 3 on Fig. 3.4-Vol. I) is much higher than the 
rest of the models. Thus, the resultant median value is more 
representative of the other four ground motion models. 

For the shallow soil case, the large, distant earthquakes are also 

dominant, and G-Expert 5's model falls within the cluster of other models, 
thus, the median will be representative of all the models, and in 
particular again close to the median without Expert 5. 

The result is that the final ratio of PGA between shallow and rock cases for 
these three sites is close to the case when only the categorized correction is 
used (i.e., the correction recommended by all but G-Expert 5). 



Prior to drawing some concl 
"correction" of the hazard 
rock site is known, and one 
same location but for a sha 
amplification from rock to 
r^.), then one would genera 
point of the rock hazard cu 
exceedance h, and derive th 
of exceedance h, of the soi 



usions, let us define the meaning of the term 
curve. Let us assume that the hazard curve for a 
needs to have an estimate of the hazard at the 
How soil condition. If one assumes the 
soil to be a constant multiplicative value (say 
e rigorously the soil hazard curve by taking each 
rve, say acceleration ap for a probability of 
e corresponding point, a^, for the same probability 
1 hazard curve such that 



ac = a 



R 



at constant h. 



Although this operation is correct for a constant r^ as indicated above, it 
would not be correct to perform it when a combination of correction types are 
used as in our study where the final effect is in between the two types of 
corrections as indicated in Table 3.1.1, and the relative weight of each type 
of correction depends both on the dominant zonation effects and on the 
dominant ground motion models. 

However, Table 3.1.1 shows that constructing a soil hazard curve by first 
starting from our rock hazard curves and applying an average correction factor 
would lead to an estimated soil hazard curve close to the hazard curve 
estimated by our full method described in Vol. I and Section 2.2 of this 
volume. 

Table 3.1.1 shows that the error could be negligible in some cases, and at 
most, for the 12 sites considered here, the error would have been 13% (for 
Callaway). In all 12 cases but one (i.e., Oconee), the error would have been 
an underestimation (it would have been overestimated by approximately 3% at 
Oconee) . 



-166- 



m^^Hflfifi 



mt 



At the present time, we have not been able to derive any simple correlation 
between this effective amplification factor (column (4) of Table 3.1.1) and 
the zonation characteristics, location, soil conditions, or any other 
parameters specific to any given site, thus making impossible the rigorous 
transformation of our rock hazard curves into soil hazard curves in a simple 
way. 

And finally, one needs to caution the reader in extending the above 
conclusions to the probability of exceedance space. In spite of the 
remarkable stability of the correction factors shown in Table 3.1.1, 
Fig. 3.1.1 shows a quite different effect. Figure 3.1.1 shows the ratios as a 
function of both the average slopes of the hazard curves (soil and rock hazard 
curves) and the average amplification from rock to soil. If all sites 
exhibited exactly the same rock hazard curves, then Fig. 3.1.1 would be an 
exact representation of column (4) of Table 3.1.1. However, the slopes of 
those hazard curves are not exactly the same as 0.2g, thus Fig. 3.1.1 shows 
some deviation from column (4) of Table 3.1.1. The general shape of 
Fig. 3.1.1 is representative of the overall process and can be considered as 
some sort of a signature. 

If some elements of the zonation, seismicity or ground motion models were to 
be changed. Fig. 3.1.1 would change. In a sensitivity test, we removed ground 
motion Experts' 5 input and found that Fig. 3.1.1 was slightly changed but its 
general shape and level were preserved. 

We feel confident that the effects shown in Table 3.1.1 and Fig. 3.1.1 are 
realistic representations of the physical effects given our assumptions on the 
site correction methods, and not due to some unexpected parasitic software or 
numerical problems such as the choice of number of simulation, for we have 
performed numerous tests in previous studies to validate our operating 
parameters (Bernreuter et al., 1985). 



-167- 



TABLE 3.1.1 

RATIOS OF PGA VALUES BETWEEN SHALLOW AND ROCK CONDITIONS 
FOR FIXED VALUES OF THE HAZARD 





Site 


Soil 
Category 


Rat 


,io Shallow/Rock 


All 
Equal 
Weight 


Only 
G5* 






10-3 


10-4 


10-^ 


Avq. 


W/0 
G5** 




(1) 


(^) 


(3) 


(4) 


(5) 


(6) 


(7) 




1 Nine Mile Point 


Sand-1 


1.57 


1.58 


1.59 


1.58 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 




2 Susquehanna 


Till-2 


1.30 


1.30 


1.30 


1.30 


1.25 


0.73 


1.38 


1- 


3 Three Mile Island 


Sand-1 


1.50 


1.47 


1.44 


1.47 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 




4 Browns Ferry 


Sand-1 


1.56 


1.66 


1.68 


1.63 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 


\ 


5 Catawba 


Sand-1 


1.59 


1.58 


1.55 


1.57 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 




6 Farley 


Sand-1 


N/A 


1.56 


1.49 


1.53 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 




7 North Anna 


Sand-1 


1.51 


1.50 


1.51 


1.51 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 




8 Oconee 


Sand-1 


1.37 


1.44 


1.47 


1.43 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 




9 Summer 


Sand-1 


1.47 


1.62 


1.61 


1.57 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 




10 Arkansas 


Till-1 


1.51 


1.50 


1.50 


1.50 


1.39 


0.73 


1.55 




11 Callaway 


Sand-1 


1.65 


1.70 


1.72 


1.69 


1.47 


0.73 


1.65 




12 Duane Arnold 


Till-1 


N/A 


1.50 


1.50 


1.50 


1.39 


0.73 


1.55 



* Ratio of PGA shallow/rock given by G-Expert 5 only 

** Ratio of PGA shallow/rock given by G-Experts 1,2,3 and 4 only 



-168- 



Buaoi 



}tuat 



3.2 Sensitivity to G-Expert 5's Model 

In Section 3.2 of Vol. VI, as well as in the discussion of the results for a 
number of sites in Vol. II-V, we pointed out that the hazard at rock sites G-^ 
Expert 5's BEHC per S-Expert is significantly higher than the other G-Experts' 
BEHCs per S-Expert. We showed in Vol. VI that at rock sites if G-Expert 5's 
model was not included that there was a significant change in both the 85th 
percentile CPHCs and the AMHCs and a much smaller change in the median 
CPHCs. At soil sites the change in all three hazard curves (median, 85th 
percentile and AM) was much smaller (on the order of the size of the change in 
medians at rock sites) . 

Because of the sensitivity of the results to GM Expert 5's model, we examined 
the sensitivity of the correction for site category to including/not including 
G-Expert 5's model at both the Susquehanna and Browns Ferry sites. These two 
sites appear to span the range in the variation introduced by the site 
correction. In Table 3.2.1 we present the results of our sensitivity study. 
Table 3.2.1 gives the ratio of the probability of exceeding 0.3g between the 
shallow soil case and the rock case at the Browns Ferry and Susquehanna sites 
for median, 85th and AM estimators of the PGA for both the case when only 
G-Experts 1-4 are used and the case when all 5 6-Experts are used. 

We see from Table 3.2.1 that the large variation in the ratio of the median 
probability of exceeding 0.3g shown in Fig. 3.1.1 and discussed in Section 3.1 
holds even if G-expert 5's model is not included. This is interesting 
because, as discussed in detail in Vol. VI, one of the main reasons why 
G-Expert 5's model had such an impact on the hazard curves is the low 
attenuation of the model. At many sites, e.g., the Browns Ferry site, this 
low attenuation would make distant zones with larger magnitude earthquakes 
more significant than local zones. Based on the discussion given in 
Section 3.1, one might expect that if we did not include G-Expert 5's model 
the Browns Ferry site would become more like the Susquehanna site where the 
hazard is dominated by the zones near the site. The result of this would have 
been to lower the ratio of the median probabilities of exceeding 0.3g given in 
Table 3.2.1 from 5.1 to a value near 2 observed at the Susquehanna site. 
Clearly this did not happen, and in fact this ratio increased somewhat. At 
the Susquehanna site there was no change. 

We see from Table 3.2.1 that including/not including G-Expert 5's model has a 
significant impact on the ratio of both the 85th and AM probabilities of 
exceeding 0.3g between the shallow soil and rock case at the Browns Ferry and 
Susquehanna sites. In general we expect that the difference between the 85th 
percentile CPHCs between the rock and soil cases when G-Expert 5's is not 
included will be similar, but somewhat larger, than the variation in the 
medians. The variation in the AMHCs between the rock and soil cases when 
G-Expert 5's model is not included will be larger than the variation in the 
85th percentile CPHCs, and more variable from site to site. 

However, when considering the ratios of acceleration for a given probability 
of exceedance, we found no change in the basic shape of Fig. 3.1.1, as 
explained in Section 3.1. 

-169- 



3.3 Conclusions 

Our results show several interesting results: 

There can be a wide region-to-region and even site-to-site variation 
in how the site correction impacts the computed hazard at a site. We 
found that the computed median hazard applicable for the structures 
founded in shallow soil range over a factor of 2 to over 5 higher 
than the median hazard applicable for structures founded on rock at 
the same site. Given this wide variation and the complex set of 
factors causing this variation, it is not possible to say that our 
results include the worst case. 



r 



However, in terms of PGA values for a fixed return period, we found 
that the values for the soil case fell within 13 percent of the value 
one would obtain by applying an effective amplification computed as 
the weighted 6-Experts' amplification factors. 

Since such small variation in PGA can introduce large variations in 
the hazard estimate, it is clear from the results presented that it 
is not appropriate to correct for site conditions by first computing 
the hazard at a site by considering it as a rock site and then 
introduce approximate correction factors, e.g., such as could be 
extracted from the sensitivity results given in Section 2.2 of Vol. 
YI. 



x>:<->v 



Considerable caution must be exercised in trying to use the results 
given in this volume to extrapolate to other sites. There is a very 
complex interaction between the zonation, seismicity parameters and 
the correction for site type which has a significant impact on the 
computed hazard at any given site. 

The correction for site category is sensitive to the ground motion 
models used. If G-Expert 5's model is not included then it appears 
that there is a wider regional and site-to-site variation than when 
6-Expert 5's model is included. 



-170- 



TABLE 3.2.1 

RATIO (SOIL/ROCK) OF THE PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING 0.3g FOR THE CASE WHEN ALL 5 
G-EXPERTS ARE USED AND THE CASE WHEN ONLY G-EXPERTS 1-4 ARE USED AT THE BROWNS 
FERRY AND SUSQUEHANNA SITES 





Browns 


Ferry 


Susqueh 


lanna 




All 5 
G-Experts 


Only 

G-Experts 

1-4 


All 5 
G-Experts 


Only 

G-Experts 

1-4 


Median 


5.1 


5.9 


2.1 


2.2 


85th Percentile 


1.4 


6.9 


1.1 


2.8 


AM 


0.9 


8.9 


1.7 


5.1 



-171- 



r 

1 




a. 



6. 



8. 



10, 



12. 



SITE ID. NUMBER 



Figure 3.1.1 



Plot of the ratio of the probability of exceeding 0.3g PGA for 
the median (line), 85th percentile (plot symbol, "0") and the 
arithmetic mean (plot symbol, "X") for the (shallow soil 
case)/(rock case). Site ID number is the same as the section 
number listed in Table 1.1. 



-172- 



APPENDIX A 



References 

Algermissen, S.T., Perkins, D.M., Thenhaus. P.C, Hangen, S.L., and Bender, 
B L k (1982) Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in 
Rock in the Contiguous United States , USGS. open file report a^lQjJ. 

Bernreuter, D.L. and Minichino, C. (1983), Seismic Hazar d Analysis Overview 
and Executive Summary , NUREG/CR-1582, Vol. 1 (UCRL-bJUJU) . 

Bernreuter, D.L., Savy, J.B., and Mensing, R.W. (1987), Seismic Hazard 
Characterization of the Eastern United States: Comparative Evaluation of the 
LLNL and EPftI Studies , U.S . NRC Report NURE(:l/CR-488b. 

Bernreuter, D.L., Savy, J.B., Mensing, R.W., and Chung, D.H. (1984), Seismic 
Hazard C haracterization of the Eastern United States: Methodology and Inten 
Results for Ten Sites , NUREG/CR-3/bb. 

Bernreuter, D.L., Savy, J.B., Mensing, R.W., Chen, J.C, and Davis, B.C., 
Seismic Hazard Characterization of the Eastern United States, Volume 1: 
Methodology and Results for Ten Sites , UCm-ZU421, Vols. 1 and z. 

Chung. D.H. and Bernreuter, D.L., (1981), "Regional Relationships Among 
Earthquake Magnitude Scales," Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics , Vol 



m 



Earthquake Magnitude Scales," Reviews of Geo physi 
19, 649-663, see also NUREG/CR-14b7 (UCRL-bZ/4b) • 



EPRI (1985), _ 
United StatesT 



Sei smic 
Prel 



Hazard Methodology fcr Nuclear Facilities in the East 
im-inarv Seismic Hazard T est Computations for Parametn 



Eastern 
c 



Analysis and Comparative Evaluations , EPRI Research Project Number P101-2g 
(Draft). 

EPRI (1986) (Electric Power Research Institute), Seismic Hazard Methodology 
for the Central and Eastern United States, 9 Volumes, EPRI-NP-4726. 



A-1 



l! 



^•v 



Appendix B 

Maps of Seismic Zonation for Each 
of the 11 S-Experts 



B-1 




0) 



■to 






N 



•r- 
0) 






B-2 




B-3 



1; 




CM 



X 

u 
o 



ID 

E 
« 

•O 

o 



c 
o 

N 



E 
«/» 

•r" 
0) 
to 



CM 
CO 

0) 



B-4 




ro 



u 
a. 

X 



o 



o. 
E 
0) 

«/> 

<D 

X3 



c 
o 

N 



E 
«/) 

0) 



CO 
CD 

0) 

3 



B-5 



i 



14 




I. 
X 



E 

« 
I/) 



« 
c 
o 



E 



0) 



u 



B-6 




B-7 



:?%&t< 




B-8 



^HHS 



'^Hiitdm 




B-9 



WMy 



:<'A 




B-10 



«'^^:■' 




B-n 




B-12 



ir-iJ^' 




B-13 




B-14 



.^^'^- 



^^vS^ 




B-15 




B-16 




B-17 




B-18 



M:imi 



-^—^——— - U t NUCLIAM Rf aULATOMV COMMIMION 

.BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 

Sei IN$T«UCTlONSONTMt BiV€«Si 



NMC FOMM S3t 

12 Ml 

NMCM noi. 
]}0I.1202 



J. TiTLt ANOSUSTlTLt 

Seismic Hazard Characterization of 69 Nuclear Plant Sites 
East of the Rocky Mountains 

Supplementary Seismic Hazard Results for 

Sites with Multiple Soil Conditions 



t AUTMOn(SI , _ _, _, 

D.L. Bernreuter, J.B. Savy, R.W. Mensing, J.C. Chen 



I BtPO«T NUM81B Mu.fi**!)!' "OC t»a Vol No . .1 tnyl 

NURfc;c/CR-5250 
UCID-21517 
Vol. 8 



1 LEAVf tLANK 



4 DATE BtPORT coMPLereo 



MONTH 

November 



YEAR 

1988 



6 DATE REPORT ISSUED 



7 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO MAILING ADDRESS llncluM^'P CoOml 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
P.O. Box 808, L-197 
Livermore, California 94550 



MONTH 

January 



YEAR 

1989 



10 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS »/.<:/««• /.o Cnd./ 

Division of Engineering and System Technology 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Washington, DC 20555 



8 PROJECT/TASH/WORK UNIT NUMBER 



9 FIN OR GRANT NUMBER 

A0A48 



n« TYPE OF REPORT 

Technical 



b PERIOD COVERED (Inciunvt Ottotl 

October 1986-October 1988 



12 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 



7th of an earlier study 



13 ABSTRACT /i(»wo<Wl<V/»f« „ . /^,,^\ • tU t-^^^,-. 

The EUS Seismic Hazard Characterization Project (SHC) is the outgrow 

performed as part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Systematic Evaluation 
Program (SEP). The objectives of the SHC were: (1) to develop a seismic hazard characteriz- 
ation methodology for the region east of the Rocky Mountains (EUS), and (2) the application 
of the methodology to 69 site locations, some of them with several local soil conditions. 
The method developed uses expert opinions to obtain the input to the analyses. An important 
aspect of the elicitation of the expert opinion process was the holding of two feedback 
meetings with all the experts in order to finalize the methodology and the input data 
bases. The hazard estimates are reported in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 5/o 
damping velocity response spectra (PSV) . 

A total of eight volumes make up this report which contains a thorough description of the 
methodology, the expert opinion's elicitation process, the input data base as well as a 
discussion, comparison and summary volume (Volume VI). 

Consistent with previous analyses, this study finds that there are large uncertainties 
associated with the estimates of seismic hazard in the EUS, and it identifies the ground 
motion modeling as the prime contributor to those uncertainties. 

The data bases and software are made available to the NRC and to the public uses through 
the National Energy Software Center (Argonne, Illinois). 



1* DOCUMENT ANALYSIS - « KEYWORDS/DESCRIPTORS 

Seismic hazard. Eastern U.S., ground motion 



b. lOENTlFIERS/OPENENDEO TERMS 



15 AVAILABILITY 
STATEMENT 



Unlimited 



16 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 



IThn Of I 

Unclassified 



tThit roooftt 

Unclassified 



17 NUMBER OF PAGES 



oU.S.CCH/tRNmENT PRINTING OFr ICE :1989-241-590 |B0332 



■« 



(«i 



ff.-. 



■-::!^ 



UNITED STATES 
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 



SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

USNRC 

PERMIT No. G-67 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 




3 0112 084234043